The best I saw was in 3.5e. The DM instituted that if you lose more than half your maxHP in one round, roll a Fort save or fall unconscious.
Made battles much more strategic. No rushing dragons; my players now use their environment since I started DMing and using it.
-2 to AC until the beginning of your next turn. This acts as your character becoming off balanced/opening up their defense for only a few seconds due to a confirmed critical miss(roll of 10 or below in my group). You could go even futher and have the penalty to AC equal the damage multipler of the character's weapon(x2 would be -2, x3 -3, etc)
As I've said in the Worst House Rules thread: in my opinion, if there is the possiblity of getting critical hits, then there should be the possiblity of critical misses.
I like this variation alot better simply because, I really have no interest in playing/protraying a professional adventure who is always dropping their weapon, falling prone, unstringing their bow, etc.
The best I saw was in 3.5e. The DM instituted that if you lose more than half your maxHP in one round, roll a Fort save or fall unconscious.
You think that's a good house rule?
I think that's a terrible house rule. It doesn't even make any sense...
A critical miss house rule, saw this posted on these forums(unfortunately I do not remember the poster or the thread).
-2 to AC until the beginning of your next turn. This acts as your character becoming off balanced/opening up their defense for only a few seconds due to a confirmed critical miss(roll of 10 or below in my group). You could go even futher and have the penalty to AC equal the damage multipler of the character's weapon(x2 would be -2, x3 -3, etc)
This is a terrible idea. My level 30 Dervish fumbles more than a level 1 Wizard?
As I've said in the Worst House Rules thread: in my opinion, if there is the possiblity of getting critical hits, then there should be the possiblity of critical misses.
There already is the possibility of a critical miss. When you roll a natural 1, you automatically miss. That is a critical miss.
I like this variation alot better simply because, I really have no interest in playing/protraying a professional adventure who is always dropping their weapon, falling prone, unstringing their bow, etc.
As opposed to a professional level 30 adventurer who's always leaving himself open more often than a level 1 adventurer? :P
But I'm going to go ahead and digress...
My group ripped off a 3.5 house rule from some article on this site. Instead of characters getting feats at every 3 levels and ability score points at every 4 levels, they instead get feats at every odd level and ability score points at ever even level. To compensate, those Tomes and Manuals that grant inherent bonuses to ability scores do not exist, and party wealth is cut down to about between 75% and 80% of what is normally expected.
The goal is to make the game just a little bit more about the heroes and a little bit less about their stuff. Also, it causes characters to have many fewer dead levels over their career.
You think that's a good house rule?
I think that's a terrible house rule. It doesn't even make any sense...
It's kind of simulating shock. If a person slowly takes injury over the day/week, their body won't react as strongly as if they lose both their arms in 30 seconds. Don't get me wrong, they'll be sicker than a dog regardless but shock/the massive damage idea is based on a medical reality. Even if you don't think it sounds fun. :P
There already is the possibility of a critical miss. When you roll a natural 1, you automatically miss. That is a critical miss.
No, that's just a miss. A natural 20 is just a hit, unless you confirm it and give it a special property (like x2 damage), in which case it becomes a critical hit. A natural 1 is just a miss, unless you must roll to confirm it (in whichever manner your group has adopted) and also give it a special property (like dropping your weapon) in which case it becomes a critical miss. It's not critical until it's confirmed and you do something special to it.
Instead of characters getting feats at every 3 levels and ability score points at every 4 levels, they instead get feats at every odd level and ability score points at ever even level. To compensate, those Tomes and Manuals that grant inherent bonuses to ability scores do not exist, and party wealth is cut down to about between 75% and 80% of what is normally expected.
The goal is to make the game just a little bit more about the heroes and a little bit less about their stuff. Also, it causes characters to have many fewer dead levels over their career.
Our group has had a similar discussion about being so dependent on 'stuff'. However, we haven't done anything about it and that's probably because none of us have a lot of money in real life and we love having possessions in our greedy little hands. :P
It's kind of simulating shock. If a person slowly takes injury over the day/week, their body won't react as strongly as if they lose both their arms in 30 seconds. Don't get me wrong, they'll be sicker than a dog regardless but shock/the massive damage idea is based on a medical reality. Even if you don't think it sounds fun. :P
Precisely! And in-game, it's how it functions out. It's a rare occurrence and it helps keep the spellcasters balanced since it usually happens to them when it happens.
As for the "stuff" situation, players love "stuff". You can keep a game balanced with "stuff". If you break the PC stats then you find yourself explaining why a level 10 adventurer has the equivalent IQ of a 1000 year old Great Wyrm who is wearing a periapt of Wisdom and some int boosting crap.
This is really a problem with the DM, if the stuff is overmatching the players. "Stuff" is used to get you through early levels, yes, but in later levels, "stuff" should equate to "loot". I rarely give out more than +1 or +2 bonus magical items.
If a dying character is currently stable, another character can make a heal check against DC 15 in order to allow them to use a healing surge.
I liked this rule because it allowed us to trade our valuable standard actions in exchance for the chance of bringing a valuable ally back into the fight. At the same time, it was far from overpowered because you had to hit a DC 15 to make them stable in the first place.
3.5 cleave (and great cleave)
When you drop an enemy to 0 HP you gain a extra attack against an enemy that is adjacent to you and the enemy you droped (as apposed to adjacent you).
I think this is a little more realistic. Who swings though their enemy and then somehow bypasses the ally next to him to "cleave" into the enemy on the other side?
I think this is a little more realistic. Who swings though their enemy and then somehow bypasses the ally next to him to "cleave" into the enemy on the other side?
Actually, the original makes more sense. Your attack is an abstraction for all the actions to hurt the opponent in one round. Cleave assumes that you drop the enemy before the time has run out and you can fluently change from one opponent to another.
The shock rule is quite interesting.
Just a small one.
3.5 cleave (and great cleave)
When you drop an enemy to 0 HP you gain a extra attack against an enemy that is adjacent to you and the enemy you droped (as apposed to adjacent you).
I think this is a little more realistic. Who swings though their enemy and then somehow bypasses the ally next to him to "cleave" into the enemy on the other side?
Right - because cleaving through an enemy with a spear (or other piercing weapon) is exactly what the feat is doing.
Precisely! And in-game, it's how it functions out. It's a rare occurrence and it helps keep the spellcasters balanced since it usually happens to them when it happens.
Well...that's what happens when you have a 10 Con, d4, and haven't rolled above a 2 for 5 levels...
Right - because cleaving through an enemy with a spear (or other piercing weapon) is exactly what the feat is doing.
I change it again when I DMed to if was peircing it cleaved to the person behind them. But that didn't really stick with great cleave:P
You think that's a good house rule?
I think that's a terrible house rule. It doesn't even make any sense...
Just because you think something is a bad house rule, doesn't mean it is. ;)
In my opinion, this is a terrible idea. My level 30 Dervish fumbles more than a level 1 Wizard?
Fixed
There already is the possibility of a critical miss. When you roll a natural 1, you automatically miss. That is a critical miss.
Nope, that is just an automatic miss. If that was the case, you'd get an automatic critical hit on a natural 20, but it's just an automatic hit. You must to roll to confirm the critical
As opposed to a professional level 30 adventurer who's always leaving himself open more often than a level 1 adventurer? :P
That is why you roll to confirm the critical miss, so your high level adventurer isn't 'always' leaving himself/herself open. :P
Maybe it's because we played in a time before they needed to be confirmed. I'm not sure. It was always kind of a drag though when you rolled that 20 (or whatever was needed) and then miss the confirmation.
- When considering a house rule the DM must ask "will this make the game more fun". Unless the answer is a resounding "yes!" then the rule does not belong.
- Every PC has a preexisting relationship with at least 1 other PC at the start of the game, creating an interconnected web of relationships explaining why you work together. None of this "you meet some strangers in a bar and decide to kill a dragon:" bull****.
- The PCs don't have to live one another, they don't even need to like each other, but you do need to work together.
A critical miss house rule, saw this posted on these forums(unfortunately I do not remember the poster or the thread).
-2 to AC until the beginning of your next turn. This acts as your character becoming off balanced/opening up their defense for only a few seconds due to a confirmed critical miss(roll of 10 or below in my group). You could go even futher and have the penalty to AC equal the damage multipler of the character's weapon(x2 would be -2, x3 -3, etc)
You consider this a best rule?
As I've said in the Worst House Rules thread: in my opinion, if there is the possiblity of getting critical hits, then there should be the possiblity of critical misses.
Yes, and you were wrong about it there too.
I like this variation alot better simply because, I really have no interest in playing/protraying a professional adventure who is always dropping their weapon, falling prone, unstringing their bow, etc.
Better than "total crap" is still "mostly crap".
Fixed
Nope. That fumble rules are terrible is not an opinion. Any system which most penalizes those least like to mess up and least penalizes those most likely to mess upis a bad system. This is a fact.
Best house rules:
[*]Every PC has a preexisting relationship with at least 1 other PC at the start of the game, creating an interconnected web of relationships explaining why you work together. None of this "you meet some strangers in a bar and decide to kill a dragon:" bull****.
Not in my opinion, many adventuring parties are formed this way, work out just fine and are tons of fun to roleplay. :D
You consider this a best rule?
Yes, otherwise I would not have posted it in this thread. ;)
Yes, and in my opinion, you were wrong about it there too.
Fixed
Better than "total crap" is still "mostly crap".
Again, this is a matter of opinion.
Nope. That fumble rules are terrible is not an opinion. Any system which most penalizes those least like to mess up and least penalizes those most likely to mess upis a bad system. This is a fact.
As explained in the other thread: melee combat is rather dangerous, and a character engaging in melee is putting himself/herself in more danger than someone who is casting spells or firing a bow from a distance. Please try to pay attention.
Fixed
"Fixed" n much the same way water is "dry" and sunlight is "dark".
As explained in the other thread: melee combat is rather dangerous, and a character engaging in melee is putting himself/herself in more danger than someone who is casting spells or firing a bow from a distance.
Yes, and rather stupidly fumble rules increase that danger to the people who are best at it. The danger comes from people and monsters trying to kill you. It should not come from you ****ing up royally twice a minute and any rules that dictate otherwise are bad.
Please try to pay attention.
Please try to be less condescending.
Yes, and rather stupidly fumble rules increase that danger to the people who are best at it. The danger comes from people and monsters trying to kill you. It should not come from you ****ing up royally twice a minute and any rules that dictate otherwise are bad.
People(characters) occasionally make mistakes, it happens. And in the fumble system that I support, occasionaly those mistakes may cause them to leave their defenses open for only a few seconds.
Please try to be less condescending.
I apologise if I seem condescending, it is not my intent. But please take the time to actually read(not skim through) my posts in their entirety before replying.
- Sorcerers get eschew materials as a bonus feat at first level. They also add Diplomacy and Intimidate to their class skill list.
- Rather than getting a penalty to both Int and Cha, a half-orc chooses one ability to have a penalty to.
- harm can kill on a failed save. (although it turns out this isn't a house rule, according to Skip Williams.)
And... I'm forgetting something. When I remember, I'll post it.
I don't know about anybody else, but I certainly deem my personal house rules to be "best." I don't use too many, just to keep things simple.
[*]Rather than getting a penalty to both Int and Cha, a half-orc chooses one ability to have a penalty to.
Great house-rule, I too use a variation of this, which is based on which community(among orcs or humans) the half-orc was raised in.
People(characters) occasionally make mistakes, it happens. And in the fumble system that I support, occasionaly those mistakes may cause them to leave their defenses open for only a few seconds.
"A few seconds" is a round, enough time for up to 18 creatures - discounting reach or ranged attacks - to take advantage of this momentary "lapse". Also, every 30 seconds is a bit more than "occasional", the most highly skilled melee fighters are th least likely to make such mistakes and yet this systems ensures they are the most likely to do so, and PCs are meant to be more than just ordinary people.
I apologise if I seem condescending, it is not my intent. But please take the time to actually read(not skim through) my posts in their entirety before replying.
Sorry, but to assume that because I disagree with you means I have failed to fully read and comprehend what you have posted is arrogant.
I don't know about anybody else, but I certainly deem my personal house rules to be "best." I don't use too many, just to keep things simple.
- Rather than getting a penalty to both Int and Cha, a half-orc chooses one ability to have a penalty to.
Ooh, I like that one. Yoink! :D
Just because you think something is a bad house rule, doesn't mean it is. ;)
...
Fixed
Haven't you heard? My opinions are so awesome that that count as facts. :P
Nope, that is just an automatic miss. If that was the case, you'd get an automatic critical hit on a natural 20, but it's just an automatic hit. You must to roll to confirm the critical
Just because they have a slightly different name and a slightly different mechanic doesn't mean they're not equivalent, directly opposing mechanics to one another. An "Automatic Miss" is the mechanical opposite of a "Critical Hit."
Also, every 30 seconds is a bit more than "occasional", the most highly skilled melee fighters are th least likely to make such mistakes and yet this systems ensures they are the most likely to do so, and PCs are meant to be more than just ordinary people.
That is an extreme exaggeration.
Sorry, but to assume that because I disagree with you means I have failed to fully read and comprehend what you have posted is arrogant.
It is not that you are disagreeing with my opinions. Replying in an 'aggressive' fashion while informing people that their house-rules are wrong just because you don't like them, is trolling.
Just because they have a slightly different name and a slightly different mechanic doesn't mean they're not equivalent, directly opposing mechanics to one another. An "Automatic Miss" is the mechanical opposite of a "Critical Hit."
A critical hit must be confirmed, thus an automatic hit(roll of a natural 20) is the mechanical opposite of an automatic miss(roll of a natural 1).
That is an extreme exaggeration.
It is not extreme exaggeration, it is simple math:
One round = six seconds.
Four attack per round.
Twenty attacks every five rounds.
One chance in 20 for a fumble.
Mathematically, a 20th level fighter, one of the best melee combatants in the world, will fumble once every 30 seconds or twice each minute.
It is not that you are disagreeing with my opinions. Replying in an 'aggressive' fashion while informing people that their house-rules are wrong just because you don't like them, is trolling.
I am not saying fumble rules are wrong because I don't like them, I don't like them because they are wrong.
Pointing out why they are wrong is not trolling.
A critical hit must be confirmed, thus an automatic hit(roll of a natural 20) is the mechanical opposite of an automatic miss(roll of a natural 1).
The salient point is that there is no need for a mechanical opposite of a critical hit.
It is not extreme exaggeration, it is simple math:
One round = six seconds.
Four attack per round.
Twenty attacks every five rounds.
One chance in 20 for a fumble.
Mathematically, a 20th level fighter, one of the best melee combatants in the world, will fumble once every 30 seconds or twice each minute.
Yes, provided you are not rolling to confirm a critical miss. Also, go ahead and roll a D20 twenty times, let me know how many 1s you actually get.
I am not saying fumble rules are wrong because I don't like them, I don't like them because they are wrong.
Nice try
Pointing out why they are wrong is not trolling.
But the manner in which you did, is. When your replies make it seem as though you just skimmed through posts with the intent to create 'trolling' replies, don't be surprised when someone points it out.
The salient point is that there is no need for a mechanical opposite of a critical hit.
And again, you want the bonus of a critical hit possiblity without the penalty of a critical miss possiblity. Video games are more suited to that type of play, good ammount of possible bonuses with little(if any) opposite possible penalities.
Yes, provided you are not rolling to confirm a critical miss. Also, go ahead and roll a D20 twenty times, let me know how many 1s you actually get.
Confirmation or not, the high level combatant still threatens a fumble several times more often.
Nice try
Pardon?
But the manner in which you did, is. When your replies make it seem as though you just skimmed through posts with the intent to create 'trolling' replies, don't be surprised when someone points it out.
The key word there is "seems". Just cos it "seems" to you that I am "skimming" posts and "trolling" does not make it so.
Confirmation or not, the high level combatant still threatens a critical several times more often.
Indeed, he would threaten a critical hit more often, so he would also threaten a critical miss more often. 'Balance'
Pardon?
It was a nice try.
The key word there is "seems". Just cos it "seems" to you that I am "skimming" posts and "trolling" does not make it so.
I was only informing you of how it seemed in order to make you were aware of it.
A critical hit must be confirmed, thus an automatic hit(roll of a natural 20) is the mechanical opposite of an automatic miss(roll of a natural 1).
I can't tell whether or not you actually read what you quoted here. I'll quote myself and let you try again:
Just because they have a slightly different name and a slightly different mechanic doesn't mean they're not equivalent, directly opposing mechanics to one another. An "Automatic Miss" is the mechanical opposite of a "Critical Hit."
And again, you want the bonus of a critical hit possiblity without the penalty of a critical miss possiblity. Video games are more suited to that type of play, good ammount of possible bonuses with little(if any) opposite possible penalities.
This is complete fallacy.
And again, you want the bonus of a critical hit possiblity without the penalty of a critical miss possiblity. Video games are more suited to that type of play, good ammount of possible bonuses with little(if any) opposite possible penalities.
Why do you keep bringing up videogames? What the hell does any of this have to do with videogames? And the things you are saying about them make it sound like you have never played a videogame in your life. Please, just stop. Or at least explain what the hell you are talking about more clearly.
No DnD edition has had critical fumbles except as an optional rule. Every video game I have ever played applied negative effects when it was appropriate. Most pen and paper RPGs do not have critical fumbles. What any of this has to do with the game's medium, I have no idea, but you seem to think that most people who play pen and paper games would be happier playing video games, including the people who design such systems.
Please don't take this as a flame, but it seems like maybe you don't know what a video game is. A video game is a game played on a computer system of some type. Beyond that I have no idea what you are talking about.
It is not extreme exaggeration, it is simple math:
One round = six seconds.
Four attack per round.
Twenty attacks every five rounds.
One chance in 20 for a fumble.
Mathematically, a 20th level fighter, one of the best melee combatants in the world, will fumble once every 30 seconds or twice each minute.
I am not saying fumble rules are wrong because I don't like them, I don't like them because they are wrong.
Pointing out why they are wrong is not trolling.
umm.... if combat is lasting a whole minute, something very extraordinary is going on.
Also, the more "in to the fray", so to speak, a character is (and that would be the fighter), the greater the likelihood that some wierd/dangerous stuff is going to happen.
And again, you want the bonus of a critical hit possiblity without the penalty of a critical miss possiblity. Video games are more suited to that type of play, good ammount of possible bonuses with little(if any) opposite possible penalities.
I couldn't say it any better. +1
I can't tell whether or not you actually read what you quoted here. I'll quote myself and let you try again:
And it seems as though you did not fully understand my reply. I invite you to scroll up and read through it a second time.
This is complete fallacy.
Not really.
I couldn't say it any better. +1
Thank you.
Indeed, he would threaten a critical hit more often, so he would also threaten a critical miss more often. 'Balance'
First, that was a misstype on my part. It was meant to read "fumble" and has been changed.
Second, there is no logic at all behind teh assumption that a high-level melee combatant should have a chance to **** up as often as he does to hit well.
Third, equivalency is not balance.
It was a nice try.
Try for what? What are you talking about?
I was only informing you of how it seemed in order to make you were aware of it.
I am well aware of the fact that people on the internet make erroneous assumptions about others' intent where no such intent exists.
And again, you want the bonus of a critical hit possiblity without the penalty of a critical miss possiblity. Video games are more suited to that type of play, good ammount of possible bonuses with little(if any) opposite possible penalities.
No, I don't. This, you telling me what I want and clearly ignoring what I am actually saying, is a perfect example both of the aforementioned erroneous assumptions and also your arrogance. It is more than a little presumptuous for you to tell me what I think and fell, especially when you know nothing of me save for a tiny handful of internet posts on a smattering of topics and have no basis for such a conclusion.
umm.... if combat is lasting a whole minute, something very extraordinary is going on.
Also, the more "in to the fray", so to speak, a character is (and that would be the fighter), the greater the likelihood that some wierd/dangerous stuff is going to happen.
Why?
I couldn't say it any better. +1
Doesn't mean it was said well.
Why do you keep bringing up videogames? What the hell does any of this have to do with videogames? And the things you are saying about them make it sound like you have never played a videogame in your life. Please, just stop. Or at least explain what the hell you are talking about more clearly.
No DnD edition has had critical fumbles except as an optional rule. Every video game I have ever played applied negative effects when it was appropriate. Most pen and paper RPGs do not have critical fumbles. What any of this has to do with the game's medium, I have no idea, but you seem to think that most people who play pen and paper games would be happier playing video games, including the people who design such systems.
Please don't take this as a flame, but it seems like maybe you don't know what a video game is. A video game is a game played on a computer system of some type. Beyond that I have no idea what you are talking about.
He's most likely refering to a stylistic approach.
Video games are all about how to best get to the "win"
in PnP RPG's, there is no "win" (well, at least in theory).
Video games are very weak in the immersive-roleplaying department. Also, not too many video games have the real threat of long-term negative consequences. People who are geared to this "video game mentality" typically are very much against those type of real, lasting effects in PnP RPG's.
It's just a reference point.
I couldn't say it any better. +1
Have I fallen into some alternate universe where "video game" is an alternate word for "candy dispenser" or something?
What video game are you playing where there are no penalties, and the game isn't balanced around that concept? What version of Dungeons and Dragons are you playing where critical fumbles even exist? Are you actually claiming that anybody who doesn't use your critical fumble rules would be happier playing a video game than, say, Dungeons and Dragons, a game we obviously enjoy that has nothing like what you are describing? It's like some bizarro world. "Oh yeah, well if you prefer to play dungeons and dragons instead of the game I just made up, obviously you would prefer to play (some video game I cannot name where everybody gets bonuses but never negatives)."
Why do you keep bringing up videogames? What the hell does any of this have to do with videogames? And the things you are saying about them make it sound like you have never played a videogame in your life. Please, just stop. Or at least explain what the hell you are talking about more clearly.
No DnD edition has had critical fumbles except as an optional rule. Every video game I have ever played applied negative effects when it was appropriate. Most pen and paper RPGs do not have critical fumbles. What any of this has to do with the game's medium, I have no idea, but you seem to think that most people who play pen and paper games would be happier playing video games, including the people who design such systems.
Please don't take this as a flame, but it seems like maybe you don't know what a video game is. A video game is a game played on a computer system of some type. Beyond that I have no idea what you are talking about.
Please reread the thread. Perhaps take a step back for a bit of a breather and give yourself a chance to calm down a bit. I apologise if my opinion offended you, that was not the intent.
It's just a reference point.
A poor and meaningless one.
Please reread the thread. Perhaps take a step back for a bit of a breather and give yourself a chance to calm down a bit. I apologise if my opinion offended you, that was not the intent.
Why do you assume someone who disagrees with you needs to "take a…breather" and "calm down". Believe it or not, people can disagree with you without frothing at the mouth and punching their monitor.
He's most likely refering to a stylistic approach.
Video games are all about how to best get to the "win"
in PnP RPG's, there is no "win" (well, at least in theory).
Video games are very weak in the immersive-roleplaying department. Also, not too many video games have the real threat of long-term negative consequences. People who are geared to this "video game mentality" typically are very much against those type of real, lasting effects in PnP RPG's.
It's just a reference point.
Well said!
He's most likely refering to a stylistic approach.
Video games are all about how to best get to the "win"
in PnP RPG's, there is no "win" (well, at least in theory).
Video games are very weak in the immersive-roleplaying department.
Ah. I see. He was referencing your poor imagination. Specifically your apparent inability to role play while in front of a computer. He should rephrase himself next time. He should say something like, "I think you would be much happier if you were jgumbyrx, and you were playing a video game."
Also, not too many video games have the real threat of long-term negative consequences. People who are geared to this "video game mentality" typically are very much against those type of real, lasting effects in PnP RPG's.
It's just a reference point.
That's definitely not what he is saying. He is defending a critical fumble system where a character takes a temporary -2 AC for one round on a natural 1. It has nothing to do with "real, lasting effects."
Please reread the thread. Perhaps take a step back for a bit of a breather and give yourself a chance to calm down a bit. I apologise if my opinion offended you, that was not the intent.
Please take a moment to make your point in a way that makes a lick of sense, doesn't make presumptions about other people, and doesn't make you sound like a moron.
A poor an meaningless one.
This is a fine example of what I pointed out in the other thread, that it seemed you were doing. Thank you for confirming that your intent is indeed to troll.
Well said!
Not really.
This is a fine example of what I pointed out in the other thread, that it seemed you were doing. Thank you for confirming that your intent is indeed to troll.
I confirmed nothing of the sort. Pointing out that it is a poor and meaningless comparison is not trolling.
This is a fine example of what I pointed out in the other thread, that it seemed you were doing. Thank you for confirming that your intent is indeed to troll.
Why? It is a poor and meaningless reference point. I can prove it, because jgumbyrx obviously got completely the wrong impression. If it were a good reference point, jgumbyrx and I would have some idea of what you are talking about.
Please take a moment to make your point in a way that makes a lick of sense, doesn't make presumptions about other people, and doesn't make you sound like a moron.
I am sorry if you did not understand it, but there is no need to be hostile.
Not really.
I confirmed nothing of the sort. Pointing out that it is a poor and meaningless comparison is not trolling.
More of the same, thank you for the further confirmation.
Why? It is a poor and meaningless reference point. I can prove it, because jgumbyrx obviously got completely the wrong impression. If it were a good reference point, jgumbyrx and I would have some idea of what you are talking about.
Just because you failed to understand it, does not mean another poster(who's opinion differs from your's) got the wrong impression.
I am sorry if you did not understand it, but there is no need to be hostile.
I'm sorry if you've never played a video game. There's no need to be a dick about it.
What you're doing is just trying to smear _Jayne_Cobb_ by association. You say derogatorily, "You would be happier playing a video game," and you don't have to actually confront his point. You misuse the concept of game balance, and you say, "If you don't agree, you should be playing a videogame," even though most video games are far better balanced than most RPGs.
It's moronic, frankly, and hostile of itself.
Make your actual point and stop trying to tell people what games they should like based on completely irrelevant criteria. Stop trying to use a medium as a smear. And stop suggesting that things that are simply untrue are true.
Your contention: if you don't like my critical fumble rule, you would be happier playing video games.
Reality: you completely made up your fumble rule. There are dozens of RPGs that have no fumble rules whatsoever. Most people who ever play an RPG will not play it using your fumble rule.
Unless you are trying to argue that just about everybody in the world except your group would be happier playing a video game, maybe you can just shut up about video games and say what you are actually trying to say?
And it seems as though you did not fully understand my reply. I invite you to scroll up and read through it a second time.
I read through it five times. No, the natural one and natural twenty rules are not the same as one another. We all know that. That doesn't mean that they're not mechanical opposites.
Not really.
Yes really. Video games have nothing to do with this. lofgren did a good job of explaining why, so try actually addressing his posts instead of telling him to calm down as though he actually needs to.
Just because you failed to understand it, does not mean another poster(who's opinion differs from your's) got the wrong impression.
I'm sorry, what? Are you actually trying to hide behind jgumbyrx excuse for you? Because as I pointed out in my response to him this is both poor reasoning and inaccurate description of the system you are trying to defend. That means either jgumbyrx got the wrong impression, or your suggestion that _Jayne_Cobb_ play a video game has even less to do with the house rule you are defending than I thought.
I'm sorry, what? Are you actually trying to hide behind jgumbyrx excuse for you? Because as I pointed out in my response to him this is both poor reasoning and inaccurate description of the system you are trying to defend. That means either jgumbyrx got the wrong impression, or your suggestion that _Jayne_Cobb_ play a video game has even less to do with the house rule you are defending than I thought.
If you had bothered to read the entire thread, you would understand my points and why I referenced video games and why it seemed he might be happier playing one.
There is no need for the hostility. As I said before, I apologise if anything I wrote offended you, but please try to calm down a bit.
Yes really. Video games have nothing to do with this. lofgren did a good job of explaining why, so try actually addressing his posts instead of telling him to calm down as though he actually needs to.
To be fair, I recently played Persona 3/4, video games which do indeed have critical fumbles on standard melee attacks. They are no less frustrating on the screen than they are the table.
I allow Half-elves to take either Elven Accuracy, Fae Step, Darkness or Faerie Fire/Dancing Lights as an alternative to Dilettante
I read through it five times. No, the natural one and natural twenty rules are not the same as one another. We all know that. That doesn't mean that they're not mechanical opposites.
I am not sure what you are missing here. A critical hit is different from an automatic hit.
An automatic hit occurs when you roll a natural 20.
A critical hit occurs when you confirm a critical threat.
For example, if you roll a natural 20, you automatically hit, but you also threaten a critical hit. To confirm a critical hit you roll the D20 once again. If you successfuly beat the target's AC, you have achieved a critical hit.
Now on the opposite side.
An automatic miss occurs when you roll a natural 1.
And depending on the house rules you use(if any) for critical misses, one example is.
A critcal miss occurs when you confirm it by rolling a D20 once again(just as you would for a critical hit threat) after a roll of a natural 1.
If you confirm the critical miss, a negative result/penalty takes affect.
That's about as simple as I can put it.
If you had bothered to read the entire thread, you would understand my points and why I referenced video games and why it seemed he might be happier playing one.
There is no need for the hostility. As I said before, I apologise if anything I wrote offended you, but please try to calm down a bit.
I have read the entire thread. I have even read the other house rules thread, where you also bring up video games as an inane smear.
Nobody understands your point, not even the people who are defending you.
I am not sure what you are missing here.
That's because I'm not missing anything.
A critical hit is different from an automatic hit.
I know.
An automatic hit occurs when you roll a natural 20.
I know.
A critical hit occurs when you confirm a critical threat.
I know.
For example, if you roll a natural 20, you automatically hit, but you also threaten a critical hit. To confirm a critical hit you roll the D20 once again. If you successfuly beat the target's AC, you have achieved a critical hit.
I know.
An automatic miss occurs when you roll a natural 1.
I know.
That's about as simple as I can put it.
Don't assume I don't understand just because I disagree with you.
I know that the mechanics for a natural twenty and a natural one are different. I know. I'm not trying to make the point that they're the same, because they're not the same. I am trying to make the point that they are already opposed and opposite to one another without further need to modify either of them.
You know what would make a critical miss exactly the opposite of a critical hit? This:
Critical hit: You automatically hit on a natural 20. Roll as second attack to confirm, and if that attack would hit as well, you deal double (triple, quadruple) damage.
Critical miss: You automatically miss on a natural 1. Roll as second attack to confirm, and if that attack would miss as well, you deal one half (third, fourth) damage.
However, that italicized part is irrelevant because you've missed anyways, AND SO in order to be opposite, all that the natural 20 and natural 1 rules need to say in order to be exactly balanced as opposite and opposed to one another is exactly what they already say, which is this:
Critical hit: You automatically hit on a natural 20. Roll as second attack to confirm, and if that attack would hit as well, you deal double (triple, quadruple) damage.
Critical miss: You automatically miss on a natural 1.
how about you both stop putting words in my mouth? thanks.
aggressive personal attacks only detract from your positions.
remember my hypothetical "cry-baby" reference? you've just became a caraciture and proved my point.
don't confuse bad rules with bad DM's. I'm not a staunch proponent for or against crit fumbles, in-and-of themselves -- I'm up for anything that is well done. as long as it is well done, it has fun-potential.
Unless, of course, you define "fun" as never having to step outside your little box/comfort zone (in which case, I can't help you -- WoW, maybe? Oh, I'm sorry -- how about baulders gate?).
@ lefgren & jayne cobb:
how about you both stop putting words in my mouth? thanks.
How about you stop putting words in Shadow_Viper's mouth and let him defend himself? Thanks.
I don't even know what you're talking about with this dm stuff. Nobody said anything about bad DMs. I'm talking to Shadow_Viper about his video game references and _Jayne_Cobb_ is talking to him about a critical fumble rule. Nobody is talking about DMs.
The argument against critical fumble penalties is mathematical. It has nothing to do with the game's medium, nor who implements it.
The rule that you apply in the instance that the rules don't cover the situation at hand. The rule is both fair and thematic to the rule system, and is remembered for future events. It is also a rule that is not designed in a way that can be abused.
I'm simple that way. Rules are rules. They govern other parts of the game that are more interesting.
Nope, just a bunch of guys fighting over the optional fumble rules. On the Internet.
I do allot of improvising with the rules as a DM, but have few consistent house rules I can think of. The most important house-rule I have is this: No PvP in a non-PvP session. If you insist on PvPing in a non-PvP session your character sheet will be taken away, the character will be made an NPC, and you will have to reroll a character that can get along with the party. Conversely, if the session is a PvP session, do not get upset if another member of the party kills you.
You'd think it's just common etiquette, not stabbing your buddies in the back when that's not the game they signed up for. Unfortunately, I've had enough problem players that I find it necessary to put it down as a rule.
Sorcerer- Eschew materials feat, bonus feat every 5 levels.
And one simple one - don't be a douchebag, and I'll be a fair DM who will even let you argue the validity of my tactics if it seems like bull.
I like critical failures. I like them for some skill checks, I like them for melee attacks, and I like them in general. The key thing is that my players do too. We find that it adds an edge of drama to encounters, an added threat, and a bit of extra narrative on the rare occasion that one happens. When that 1 comes up, people start shaking in a way that is far more chilling for them than when a dragon appears; it's one thing to be faced by an external threat, and it is quite another to face your own failure.
On any given roll, there is a one in four hundred chance of critical failure. This is such a low chance that, for our purposes, we have perhaps one or two per session at most. You roll a 1, and it's an automatic failure; you roll another 1 after that, and it's a critical failure. Let me tell you... some of our dice have 7's that look like 1's, and a few heart attacks have been had as a result.
Are the results really that bad? Not generally. But they are thematic, and at least once I can think of a time that it has shifted the battle away from the player's favor. I can think of another time that it shifted towards the player's favor; monsters get them too. Depending on the mood, it adds an infusion of humor or an infusion of drama. A dire walking stick trapping its jaws in a tree for a round was delightful for the players; the barbarian damaging his own armor was delightful for the rest of the players (and he even offered a chuckle.)
And to the argument that the most experienced will fail more often... If you are swinging your blades around for strikes six times per second, you are more likely to screw up. Where being a 20th level character can make a difference is in the severity of the failure. This is a matter of DM balancing acts, and if players show displeasure at failing at such high levels, perhaps it bears rethinking at that point. Another solution besides changing the effects might be, say, at level 10, you have to roll two 1's and then below a 10, to even further reduce the chance. And at 20, maybe three 1's in a row. Is a 1/8000 chance low enough for you? For me, 1/400 is just about right -- I like it, and my players like it.
Would I ever say that your choices are wrong, though? No, absolutely not. It's just a preference. I would say, though, that getting shot in the back by the inexperienced sorceress with a crossbow was one of my favorite memories of my first session. Sure, I almost died to the giant spider as a result... but that will be remembered far longer than a gaggle of zombies.
PS: This was 3.5e. In 4e, I'm especially looking forward to it, since dynamics for abilities between classes and such things as rituals are more unified in rolls and extra attacks are not so easy to come by, so that experienced characters have only the same likelihood going all out of getting a critical fail... and thus making it easy for me to deal with by having them handle their failures better. And, of course, wizards can fail with spells or rituals just as easily.
Our rule of cool, by the way, is more along the lines of the rule of bad-assery.
I'm going to throw in my two coppers in to the critical miss discussion, without addressing specific points on either side. Simply my take on it.
I like critical failures. I like them for some skill checks, I like them for melee attacks, and I like them in general. The key thing is that my players do too. We find that it adds an edge of drama to encounters, an added threat, and a bit of extra narrative on the rare occasion that one happens. When that 1 comes up, people start shaking in a way that is far more chilling for them than when a dragon appears; it's one thing to be faced by an external threat, and it is quite another to face your own failure.
On any given roll, there is a one in four hundred chance of critical failure. This is such a low chance that, for our purposes, we have perhaps one or two per session at most. You roll a 1, and it's an automatic failure; you roll another 1 after that, and it's a critical failure. Let me tell you... some of our dice have 7's that look like 1's, and a few heart attacks have been had as a result.
Are the results really that bad? Not generally. But they are thematic, and at least once I can think of a time that it has shifted the battle away from the player's favor. I can think of another time that it shifted towards the player's favor; monsters get them too. Depending on the mood, it adds an infusion of humor or an infusion of drama. A dire walking stick trapping its jaws in a tree for a round was delightful for the players; the barbarian damaging his own armor was delightful for the rest of the players (and he even offered a chuckle.)
And to the argument that the most experienced will fail more often... If you are swinging your blades around for strikes six times per second, you are more likely to screw up. Where being a 20th level character can make a difference is in the severity of the failure. This is a matter of DM balancing acts, and if players show displeasure at failing at such high levels, perhaps it bears rethinking at that point. Another solution besides changing the effects might be, say, at level 10, you have to roll two 1's and then below a 10, to even further reduce the chance. And at 20, maybe three 1's in a row. Is a 1/8000 chance low enough for you? For me, 1/400 is just about right -- I like it, and my players like it.
Would I ever say that your choices are wrong, though? No, absolutely not. It's just a preference. I would say, though, that getting shot in the back by the inexperienced sorceress with a crossbow was one of my favorite memories of my first session. Sure, I almost died to the giant spider as a result... but that will be remembered far longer than a gaggle of zombies.
PS: This was 3.5e. In 4e, I'm especially looking forward to it, since dynamics for abilities between classes and such things as rituals are more unified in rolls and extra attacks are not so easy to come by, so that experienced characters have only the same likelihood going all out of getting a critical fail... and thus making it easy for me to deal with by having them handle their failures better. And, of course, wizards can fail with spells or rituals just as easily.
That is, without a doubt, the most eloquent and articulate manner in which I have ever seen/heard that expressed. Thank you.
And... I'm forgetting something. When I remember, I'll post it.
I knew I'd remember it eventually...
the bonus from the Dodge feat applies to all enemies, not a single targets.
I made this change for two reasons:
1) The biggest reason I added this is because I got tired of trying to track it. For me, it made bookkeeping easier.
2) It's a weak feat. Even with the change, it's weak. But it seems to make it at least viable.
And to the argument that the most experienced will fail more often... If you are swinging your blades around for strikes six times per second, you are more likely to screw up. Where being a 20th level character can make a difference is in the severity of the failure. This is a matter of DM balancing acts, and if players show displeasure at failing at such high levels, perhaps it bears rethinking at that point. Another solution besides changing the effects might be, say, at level 10, you have to roll two 1's and then below a 10, to even further reduce the chance. And at 20, maybe three 1's in a row. Is a 1/8000 chance low enough for you? For me, 1/400 is just about right -- I like it, and my players like it.
First off, I'd like to say, your whole post was very well said.
Second, after reading over the whole Critical/Fumble discussion. An idea occurred to me, now whether its a good one or not remains to be seen.
I'm not entirely sure what the ratio would be, but lets use stat bonuses to start. It could be the key stat bonus for whatever class you are. And it's that stat bonus that can be used to negate a critical failure (times per encounter, per hour, per day not sure what would be best for balance). You still miss, but you have the chance to avoid catastophically screwing up.
Not sure if that all makes sense or not. But there it is for what it's worth.
In addition to this I also allow my players to change their race/class if a new race or class is introduced (like with PHB2) if they would have more fun as that new race/class. Of course it can't upset party balance and they have to re-work their background. So far none of the background-related story I've prepared has been hindered by this.
And it's that stat bonus that can be used to negate a critical failure (times per encounter, per hour, per day not sure what would be best for balance). You still miss, but you have the chance to avoid catastophically screwing up.
Any critical failure system is still incredibly unfair (in 3.5) no matter what you give to compensate.
Why?
Some characters can simply choose to never roll (or almost never roll). Play a caster that targets saves. The only with a chance of auto-failure is on the part of the goofy monster rolling a 1 on their saving throw.
The inherent lower power,higher failure chance & one-dimensional nature of martial characters in 3.5e makes them enough of a drag already. Giving them a chance to impale themselves (no matter how small) anytime they do anything pushes the decision to play on into the realms of insanity.
If you're houseruling 3.5, you should be doing everything in your power to put more control & options into the hands of combatants. When you starting adding things that make them less reliable, and ultimately less powerful you're just serving to irritate an already glaring flaw in the system.
If you're houseruling 3.5, you should be doing everything in your power to put more control & options into the hands of combatants. When you starting adding things that make them less reliable, and ultimately less powerful you're just serving to irritate an already glaring flaw in the system.
In their very nature house rules have no standard though. There are suggestions, and lines of thought. However Houserules are something that need to be agreed upon, so that everyone has fun.
If the DM has a Houserule regarding Critical Failures and you don't like it. Let them know. The DM's I've had including myself are usually willing to adjust so everyone will have fun.
Our current DM has a Critical Hit/Fumble deck of cards. All in all, the bad guys fumble more than the players, but for us, it adds a bit of flavor that we enjoy. Are some of the results debilitating? Sure, but we like it that way. On a side note (and I've only played casters a little) I would think it would take a very specialized caster build to never have to roll an attack roll. Which would limit them in other areas (I could very well be wrong about this though).
Our current DM has a Critical Hit/Fumble deck of cards. All in all, the bad guys fumble more than the players, but for us, it adds a bit of flavor that we enjoy. Are some of the results debilitating? Sure, but we like it that way. .
Whatever man. If that is what gives your jollies, by all means enjoy it. Ultimately it's a game and their about fun, if you're having it that's good.
For me though, hitting an automatic failure (1) even if it would be well above a success with my modifiers un-fun enough.Falling on my face only serves to make it infuriating, and the idea that a god could chop his own head off while trying to attack an 1/4th HD rabbit is hilariously inane (as gods below a certain level of divinity (Greater?, I think?) are still subject to failures on 1s) .
Still. Different strokes for different folks I suppose. What I said before still holds, if you're having fun that is all that really matters. I won't pretend to understand it, but if it works for you, it works for you.
I would think it would take a very specialized caster build to never have to roll an attack roll.
Not really. From Color Spray all the way up to Gate there are a wide variety of powerful effects that never require caster to roll attack, and that's just in core (SR is another matter in core, but outside those rolls can be circumvented) Certainly, I might bring in summoned creatures that makes attack rolls but just having an extra body on the field is already a "Success" on my part.
You know what would make a critical miss exactly the opposite of a critical hit? This:
Critical hit: You automatically hit on a natural 20. Roll as second attack to confirm, and if that attack would hit as well, you deal double (triple, quadruple) damage.
Critical miss: You automatically miss on a natural 1. Roll as second attack to confirm, and if that attack would miss as well, you deal one half (third, fourth) damage.
Actually, exact opposite would be healing the enemy (or dealing negative damage, perhaps taking away a third, fourth, etc of the damage you do on your next hit?).
Someone said something like this already: the challenge should come from the DM, not the players themselves.
For me though, hitting an automatic failure (1) even if it would be well above a success with my modifiers un-fun enough.Falling on my face only serves to make it infuriating, and the idea that a god could chop his own head off while trying to attack an 1/4th HD rabbit is hilariously inane (as gods below a certain level of divinity (Greater?, I think?) are still subject to failures on 1s) .
You are absolutely right, a DM/Group should only implement house rules like these if all agree that it would add to their fun.
As for the quoted section above though. Everyone trips, even gods. Should the consequences be that his head gets chopped off? No, probably not. A reasonably fair (and I know this is subjective) list of bonuses/consequences should be available. Not one of the cards that we've come across for fumbles is more than a temporary condition. Likewise the critical hit cards aren't always double damage (or whatever the modifier is).
I know I did mention debilitating effects previously, but I guess I consider gaining negatives (even if temporary) to that effect. Not necassarily actually losing a limb.
I'm not entirely sure what the ratio would be, but lets use stat bonuses to start. It could be the key stat bonus for whatever class you are. And it's that stat bonus that can be used to negate a critical failure (times per encounter, per hour, per day not sure what would be best for balance). You still miss, but you have the chance to avoid catastophically screwing up.
Not sure if that all makes sense or not. But there it is for what it's worth.
So, if you have a, say, +2 in that modifier, you can avoid 2 critical failures per day? Or...? I'm not sure I understand, but it sounds like an interesting train of thought!
A quick and dirty way to apply critical failures to all classes, including those that don't often make attack rolls, is to require basic spellcraft checks for casting spells. Doesn't matter what you roll as long as you don't roll two 1's. (As I mentioned in my post, our critical failures are determined by two 1's in a row.) In my particular game, this isn't really necessary because our spellcasters typically still fire bolts or darts with some regularity and as I mentioned, many skill checks can be critically failed as well. Oh, the hilarity of a majorly botched bluff check!
As one of the fellows on the other side said, different strokes for different folks. As long as you're having a good time. And there is something to be said for reducing randomness and putting control in the hands of the players... My players just happen to like the touch of randomness, and since it's a house rule in which I typically determine ad hoc what the failure is, I can make it flow in the narrative. You certainly won't find any gods cutting off their heads on a single critical failure, but the creature they're trying to smite might live another round.
Oh! And that deck of critical failure/success sounds very interesting! Did your DM make it or purchase it from somewhere? I'm (pleasantly) reminded of Monopoly cards. I like making things up as I go, but that idea does have a certain appeal!
4e houserules that have gone over well:
When a player multiclasses, he does not need to take additional feats to get powers from his secondary class. He may take one encounter, one Utility, and one daily. Changing this power, however, counts as your retraining option for that level.
Taking the Novice power, Adept power, or Acolyte power gives you an 'ether/or" power: you get two powers that fill one slot, like the Channel Divinity ability of the divine classes. Changing this power does not require retraining.
This leads to a lot of multiclass characters in my game, which is fine by me, because it also helps my insanely huge group (between 8 and 10 people) meaningfully differentiate themselves from each other even when playing the same class. It also allows them to fit their character concepts easier.
I'm also not a tyrant on allowing players to respec themselves periodically as new material becomes available. I'm interested in letting the players build to fit their concept. I encourage it, in fact. As long as there's a certain level of continuity about the choices, or they make sense from a character standpoint, I don't mind it.
Actually, exact opposite would be healing the enemy (or dealing negative damage, perhaps taking away a third, fourth, etc of the damage you do on your next hit?).
Nope, the opposite of multiplying damage is dividing damage.
The opposite of multiplication is not subtraction or anything else more convoluted.
So, if you have a, say, +2 in that modifier, you can avoid 2 critical failures per day? Or...? I'm not sure I understand, but it sounds like an interesting train of thought!
Yes, thats the idea. Except I'm not exactly sure on the frequency. If it were per encounter, it could be more "believeable" for the higher level characters. However, at lower levels it may be too much. So, I'd honestly say it would be at the DM's discretion.
Oh! And that deck of critical failure/success sounds very interesting! Did your DM make it or purchase it from somewhere? I'm (pleasantly) reminded of Monopoly cards. I like making things up as I go, but that idea does have a certain appeal!
He purchased them. Paizo GameMastery makes them, they have a variety of different decks. We just use the Critical Hits/Fumble Decks.
4e:
I allow Half-elves to take either Elven Accuracy, Fae Step, Darkness or Faerie Fire/Dancing Lights as an alternative to Dilettante
Oooh, nice - that's a good swap, full of flavor, and avoids Dilettante cheese.
Avoiding the off topic crit/fumble brouhaha....
4e houserules that have gone over well:
When a player multiclasses, he does not need to take additional feats to get powers from his secondary class. He may take one encounter, one Utility, and one daily. Changing this power, however, counts as your retraining option for that level.
Taking the Novice power, Adept power, or Acolyte power gives you an 'ether/or" power: you get two powers that fill one slot, like the Channel Divinity ability of the divine classes. Changing this power does not require retraining.
This leads to a lot of multiclass characters in my game, which is fine by me, because it also helps my insanely huge group (between 8 and 10 people) meaningfully differentiate themselves from each other even when playing the same class. It also allows them to fit their character concepts easier.
I'm also not a tyrant on allowing players to respec themselves periodically as new material becomes available. I'm interested in letting the players build to fit their concept. I encourage it, in fact. As long as there's a certain level of continuity about the choices, or they make sense from a character standpoint, I don't mind it.
On the one hand this makes the multiclass feat ridiculously overpowered, on the other hand I've always felt the novice\adept\acolyte feats were *usually* a bit on the steep side. Certain combos are really powerful but for most powers it's a lateral shift.
I like it and I dislike it, but I *definitely* like the revision to the various power feats, and may actually consider doing that for all feat-powers in future games. Instead of giving up a feat slot and a power slot for what are often very niche powers, you gain the ability to slot it into a level and use one or the other, much like the reserve maneuver feat. Though, in keeping with reserve maneuver, I would probably limit the choice to after a rest instead of whenever you please.
Still, two thumbs up.
That is, without a doubt, the most eloquent and articulate manner in which I have ever seen/heard that expressed. Thank you.
QFT.
What I dont' get is the complaint that "beaters" (i.e. fighters and monks) are the ones who have "more chances" to critical fail.
Every skill can critical fail.
Every touch and ranged-touch spell or spell-like ability can critical fail.
That's a lot nastier than fumbling and slicing your toe open for 1d4 with a dagger.
A Vitriolic Eldritch Doom fumbles, and there's a chance of a cataclysm. I'd rather stab myself in the toe.
Every touch and ranged-touch spell or spell-like ability can critical fail.
Casters can simply choose not to roll attack. Many of the most potent effects just target saves, (or don't even offer a save). Using touch-attacks is a play style CHOICE and often not even the best one (not that I'm bagging stuff like Enervation mind you) available.
Stick-Swingers have no such choice. They cannot operate at all without using attack rolls, attack rolls are they only thing they can do (and at that they can only do a couple of very 1-dimensional things with them). Casters can operate effectively, even close to or at peak performance without ever making an attack roll.
EDIT: A level of performance mind you that is already several orders of magnitude beyond the martial characters (before they started falling on their swords).
Deity Intervention -- once per level, you can call upon your deity as a last resort to help in a very desprate situation (usually to avoid death, to give a single boost to accomplish a great task, etc.)
The help must be of in dire need, where normally failure would be guaranteed.
There is a % chance of success equal to your character level + 1/previous successful attempt. If used inappropriately, % chance of success drops to 1% -- permanently.
has pulled the party's bacon off the fire a few times.
Casters can simply choose not to roll attack. Many of the most potent effects just target saves, (or don't even offer a save). Using touch-attacks is a play style CHOICE and often not even the best one (not that I'm bagging stuff like Enervation mind you) available.
Stick-Swingers have no such choice. They cannot operate at all without using attack rolls, attack rolls are they only thing they can do (and at that they can only do a couple of very 1-dimensional things with them). Casters can operate effectively, even close to or at peak performance without ever making an attack roll.
EDIT: A level of performance mind you that is already several orders of magnitude beyond the martial characters (before they started falling on their swords).
They use the ability more, they should have higher chance to fumble it. It's realistic, and that's more important than fair any day.
And if your fighters and such are that two-dimensional then your player sucks at playing a fighter. If combat were that simple then many, many wars would have gone a different way in actual RL history.
Also, there are TONS of effects out there that nerf a caster's abilities. SR is the most obvious, but effect immunities are a big one. There's even planes where Magic is Wild or stilled, where it either casts other things quite entirely when they try to cast a spell from their list, or nothing happens at all. There are even enchantments that can cause this in ANY plane. Fighters and such dont' have to deal with that.
If your fighters are two-dimensional and can't function in a system that has fumbles, then the problem is your fighter-players suck at what they do. If the real problem is that your casters have an unhealthy advantage, then your DM is being negligent and needs to change the encounters.
Yes, thats the idea. Except I'm not exactly sure on the frequency. If it were per encounter, it could be more "believeable" for the higher level characters. However, at lower levels it may be too much. So, I'd honestly say it would be at the DM's discretion.
I'm not sure that would work very well for my system of 1/400 chance, since the likelihood of getting more than your main modifier in any given encounter is... well, extremely low. If the system you use sees many more fumbles, however, it might work. On the other hand, it does seem to complicate things a bit more than I like in a houserule that, for my group, exists primarily for flavor.
Casters can simply choose not to roll attack. Many of the most potent effects just target saves, (or don't even offer a save). Using touch-attacks is a play style CHOICE and often not even the best one (not that I'm bagging stuff like Enervation mind you) available.
This is definitely a valid complaint in my book. A quick'n'dirty solution would be to institute spellcraft checks at each casting. Even if they are less likely to critically fail than a martial character, however, that may be balanced by the idea that a spellcasting critical failure could be considerably worse than a martial one (...my party rarely falls on their swords). In 4e, this complaint doesn't apply, since even rituals generally have checks.
It isn't much different than the whole rest of 3.5e, though. Spellcasters at high levels often tend to be much more powerful than martial characters in most other aspects regardless. This is a real problem, of course.
Edit: Sorry for the double post.
All races get a +2 attribute of choice and a second +2 which must be one of the two from the PHB writeup. Humans get two +2s of choice.
The rationale is simply that not having a +2 in your main attack stat acts as a disincentive for playing the race-class combination you want.
On the one hand this makes the multiclass feat ridiculously overpowered, on the other hand I've always felt the novice\adept\acolyte feats were *usually* a bit on the steep side. Certain combos are really powerful but for most powers it's a lateral shift.
I like it and I dislike it, but I *definitely* like the revision to the various power feats, and may actually consider doing that for all feat-powers in future games. Instead of giving up a feat slot and a power slot for what are often very niche powers, you gain the ability to slot it into a level and use one or the other, much like the reserve maneuver feat. Though, in keeping with reserve maneuver, I would probably limit the choice to after a rest instead of whenever you please.
Still, two thumbs up.
I've noticed the power boost, but I consider it an acceptable price to pay for the ability for my players to work their character concepts
More of the same, thank you for the further confirmation.
So pretty much anything I post now you're just going to respond with this rubbish?
@ lefgren & jayne cobb:
how about you both stop putting words in my mouth? thanks.
I'm putting nothing in your mouth.
aggressive personal attacks only detract from your positions.
I'm not being aggressive.
remember my hypothetical "cry-baby" reference? you've just became a caraciture and proved my point.
Well as I am neither crying, nor even remotely upset, then I do not think "cry baby" means what you think it means.
don't confuse bad rules with bad DM's. I'm not a staunch proponent for or against crit fumbles, in-and-of themselves -- I'm up for anything that is well done. as long as it is well done, it has fun-potential.
Fumbles are bad rules, used by bad DMs. Sadly, they are also bad rules sometimes used by good DMs as well. This doesn't make them any less bad rules.
And as I said, if someone were to show me a good fumble system I'd revise my position on the matter, but it has yet to happen.
Unless, of course, you define "fun" as never having to step outside your little box/comfort zone
I don't.
(in which case, I can't help you -- WoW, maybe? Oh, I'm sorry -- how about baulders gate?).
What does this have to do with anything?
And one simple one - don't be a douchebag, and I'll be a fair DM who will even let you argue the validity of my tactics if it seems like bull.
This is pretty much the best house-rule.
Man, I saw this thread had jumped up in replies and thought "Sweet! A huge cache of good house-rules for the perusing and possible shameless rip-offing!"
You'd think so. There are a few peppered throughout.
Nope, just a bunch of guys fighting over the optional fumble rules. On the Internet.
Why must every discussion wherein people disagree be labeled as a "fight" and any time such a thread occurs someone thinks they're being funny by posting that comic?
I'm not sure that would work very well for my system of 1/400 chance, since the likelihood of getting more than your main modifier in any given encounter is... well, extremely low. If the system you use sees many more fumbles, however, it might work. On the other hand, it does seem to complicate things a bit more than I like in a houserule that, for my group, exists primarily for flavor.
It is extremely low. I have seen it happen though (again, we don't confirm crits or fumbles). This idea hasn't been thought out or even used to my knowledge. It just popped into my head while reading this thread as a possible compromise.
Every skill can critical fail.
Without house rules, that's not true. When making skill checks, rolling a 20 isn't auto-success and rolling a 1 isn't auto-fail. I have a rogue in my game, for example, who can roll a 1 on her Hide check and still not be spotted by creatures that don't have ranks in Spot.
If you roll a 1 roll again.
If you roll another 1 then something situational happens.
Some examples that occurred in my last campaign:
• Fighting on a ship, Sahaugin raiding-party leader fumbled and threw his enchanted trident overboard
• A kobold threw a lantern, missed, and set another kobold on fire. The flaming kobold then spent the rest of the combat running around the barn they were fighting in setting it on fire as well.
• Ogre completely flattened an allied orc in a large melee
• PC shot the hat off another party member and sent it sailing into the underbrush. (The hat owner bought a combat chin-strap later)
• PC fumbled his first attack roll, so it turned out his sword was stuck and he was trying to use his still-sheathed blade as a club. (Back in town he bought a "Sheathemaster 1000 'Nev-R-Stuck' E-Z Release Combat Scabbard System with Bottle Opener and Toenail Clippers built right in!")
• Another PC fumbled his first attack with a crossbow so it turned out he had forgotten to load it. (It became a running gag in the game to check if his crossbow was loaded before combat)
I see these "fumbles" not as combat events but rather as a RP potential, adding memorable moments of amusement to the game. They are almost always played for laughs and many come not from me directly but from player suggestions, including from the fumbled PC's player.
For the PCs none are injurious or debilitating with no effects that span beyond the moment in which the "fumble" occurs and because they are entirely situational, playing off what is happening at that moment in the game rather than some chart or arbitrary meta-rule, they are far more organic and enhance the flow of the game rather than impeding it.
Every skill can critical fail.
I understand some skills, I even use a few in my games. If a player fails a jump check, he already falls short. But if he fails the check by rolling a 1, I might have him trip and bloody his nose. (Usually my penalties are roleplay only.)
In a recent game, I had a player trying to do a very risky stealth move, but he rolled a 1. I don't usually go for lowbrow humor, but just for fun I ruled that he, uh, passed gas quite loudly, alerting the enemies.
In any event, this kind of thing can be fun, but I just don't see how it applies to all skills. Like if you roll a 1 on a knowledge check, do you actually forget other stuff? You give yourself a migraine? What?
I see these "fumbles" not as combat events but rather as a RP potential, adding memorable moments of amusement to the game. They are almost always played for laughs and many come not from me directly but from player suggestions, including from the fumbled PC's player.
For the PCs none are injurious or debilitating with no effects that span beyond the moment in which the "fumble" occurs and because they are entirely situational, playing off what is happening at that moment in the game rather than some chart or arbitrary meta-rule, they are far more organic and enhance the flow of the game rather than impeding it.
I would tend to agree. Though we are currently using a deck of cards for fumbles/crits. I always liked player generated (or even flavorful DM generated) fumble results.
In one game (a long time ago), the dwarf fighter was in the midst of a dozen troglodytes (sp?) and the sorceror insisted on using his crossbow. Though they weren't technically critical misses, it became random at what target he did hit. Which always ended up being the dwarf. And the dwarf too entrenched in combat couldn't tell where he was getting shot from. He had his suspicions but could never prove it.
Anyway, it made for an entertaining encounter.
I understand some skills, I even use a few in my games. If a player fails a jump check, he already falls short. But if he fails the check by rolling a 1, I might have him trip and bloody his nose. (Usually my penalties are roleplay only.)
You can't fail a skill check by rolling a 1.
You can't fail a skill check by rolling a 1.
Some of us, apparently, houserule it. I do. You can also succeed spectacularly under my particular variant of this houserule. As others have mentioned for themselves, it is mostly about flavor and sometimes even devoid of mechanical consequences. This is a thread about houserules so I'm not too surprised that it showed up.
I like the suggestion that PC's get to choose one stat and then one from the PHB for that race. If my players were more powergamey (and I don't mean this pejoratively) and only played combinations that were optimized, this would be a good compromise to make both their RP and power sides happy.
I also like the suggestions about multiclassing in 4e. I'm looking for some kind of middleground... I do feel that multiclassing is mostly a lateral shift, which is OK, except that you're still expending a feat for little more than flavor. Anybody have any more multiclassing 4e houserule suggestions to throw in the pot?
Monsters/enemies always take 10 on Initiative.
This has a couple of advantages: as a DM, I don't have to roll init for every monster--speeds up getting to the fight an extra second or two. Also makes the fights more predictable for me--I know when the monsters will go relative to each other, and if I really want one monster to go first I can do that (with Improved Initiative or high dex or whatever) without a chance of a flubbed roll changing my plan for the fight.
It also gives the PCs a static target to shoot for. So if a PC rolls a 15 Initiative, they get the benefit of that high roll and and feel that initiative boosting is more viable and has more noticeable effects (fwiw, I tend to run low-level, lower magic games so the PCs don't win fights in 1 round even if they go first). Simple, elegant, and many players don't even notice it
After all this discussion about fumble rules, particulalry since it is an OT sub-topic in a thread about best house rules, I though I might as well put forth my own house rules for fumbles, which I consider on-topiuc to the "best house rules" theme. Given my stated position, it will doubtless shock some of you to learn that I use fumbles" and my take on it will no doubt be soundly trashed by at least two posters, but here goes:
If you roll a 1 roll again.
If you roll another 1 then something situational happens.
These are actually very similar to the fumble rules I used. I am shocked to see that you used any variant of those rules, though. Why haven't you brought that up sooner as a suggested improvement to fumble rules instead of telling people that they're outright wrong? I also feel the need to point out that any rules that makes the game more fun for the group is not wrong, no matter what mechanical or realism issues it creates, and likewise rules that are not fun are bad no matter how realistic they seem. On a side note, I haven't used those fumble rules since converting to 4e, but now that you brought this up, I'm going to have to ask my group about it.
Some of my other houserules:
Rolling for defenses (subtract 10 from your normal defense score, and the result is the modifier you apply to your d20 roll). Keeps people involved even when it's not their turn.
Orb of Imposition only lasts for 1 round, but you choose whether or not to apply it after learning the result of the target's save, so you never waste that 1/encounter use.
The 1/2 level bonus applies to damage rolls as well.
All skills are class skills for all classes. People still tend to pick within their class skills because those skills are usually most relevant, but it allows them to "break the mold" if they so choose without sacrificing feats, doesn't create any issues with power level, and makes it easier for smaller parties to cover up gaps from not having enough classes (so if there's no wizard, the rogue can take Arcana, and if there's no rogue, the fighter can pick up Thievery).
If you grab an opponent, you can use him to gain cover. Athletics can be used to oppose Acrobatics when the target attempts to escape the grab.
The DC for Aid Another is 10 + 1/2 the level of the character you are attempting to aid. Keeps the DC steady relative to the characters much like skill DCs and means even high level characters have to roll to aid their ally, especially important during skill challenges.
Without house rules, that's not true. When making skill checks, rolling a 20 isn't auto-success and rolling a 1 isn't auto-fail. I have a rogue in my game, for example, who can roll a 1 on her Hide check and still not be spotted by creatures that don't have ranks in Spot.
So, wait, 20's aren't auto success and 1's aren't auto fail? This is new with 4e then?
Cause I'm pretty sure that 20's auto success and 1's auto fail was RAW in 3.X, so have we all been playing that way as carry-over in 4e?
Can you point me to a relevant section of the 4e rule books, so I can show my group?
Thanks.
QFT.
What I dont' get is the complaint that "beaters" (i.e. fighters and monks) are the ones who have "more chances" to critical fail.
Every skill can critical fail.
Every touch and ranged-touch spell or spell-like ability can critical fail.
That's a lot nastier than fumbling and slicing your toe open for 1d4 with a dagger.
A Vitriolic Eldritch Doom fumbles, and there's a chance of a cataclysm. I'd rather stab myself in the toe.
Okay, here's why. Assuming 20th level.
The wizard's turn rolls around. Let's say he casts... a disintegrate. He rolls a single touch attack. He has ONE chance to botch this up.
Now, let's say the monk's turn comes next. In order to get close to the damage the wizard probably did (40d6), he uses flurry of blows. He also is under Haste. He now gets at least SIX attacks. He rolls SIX attacks, and has SIX chances to botch.
Yes, for every individual roll, they have the same chances, but because melee classes make attack rolls up to three to five times as often as casters, they're three to five times as likely to botch every turn. Where a caster as a 05% chance to botch, the average melee has a roughly 20% to botch each turn.
And that, my friends, is why critical failure is a terrible house rule.
So, wait, 20's aren't auto success and 1's aren't auto fail? This is new with 4e then?
Cause I'm pretty sure that 20's auto success and 1's auto fail was RAW in 3.X, so have we all been playing that way as carry-over in 4e?
Can you point me to a relevant section of the 4e rule books, so I can show my group?
Thanks.
You cannot auto-succeed or auto-fail skill checks.
In fact, auto-succeed and auto-fail only applies to attack rolls and saving throws, and nothing else.
PHB pg 63
So, wait, 20's aren't auto success and 1's aren't auto fail? This is new with 4e then?
Cause I'm pretty sure that 20's auto success and 1's auto fail was RAW in 3.X, so have we all been playing that way as carry-over in 4e?
Nope. In 3e, unlike attack rolls, with skill checks a natural 20 is not automatically successful and a natural 1 is not an automatic failure.
So, wait, 20's aren't auto success and 1's aren't auto fail? This is new with 4e then?
Cause I'm pretty sure that 20's auto success and 1's auto fail was RAW in 3.X, so have we all been playing that way as carry-over in 4e?
Can you point me to a relevant section of the 4e rule books, so I can show my group?
Thanks.
I don't know about 4e; but I know in 3.5 it's true.
SKILL CHECKS
A skill check takes into account a character’s training (skill rank), natural talent (ability modifier), and luck (the die roll). It may also take into account his or her race’s knack for doing certain things (racial bonus) or what armor he or she is wearing (armor check penalty), or a certain feat the character possesses, among other things.
To make a skill check, roll 1d20 and add your character’s skill modifier for that skill. The skill modifier incorporates the character’s ranks in that skill and the ability modifier for that skill’s key ability, plus any other miscellaneous modifiers that may apply, including racial bonuses and armor check penalties. The higher the result, the better. Unlike with attack rolls and saving throws, a natural roll of 20 on the d20 is not an automatic success, and a natural roll of 1 is not an automatic failure.
While I don't have my books in front of me, I'd wager that's in the very beginning of the Skills chapter in the 3.5 PHB. Similar text (one way or the other) is likely in the 4e PHB somewhere.
Why must every discussion wherein people disagree be labeled as a "fight" and any time such a thread occurs someone thinks they're being funny by posting that comic?
I was going to respond to this with something long and in-depth but found myself incapable of doing so without ironically (or hypocritically) becoming part of another argument. at the time I posted it I was a little annoyed to see what seemed to be a promising thread being consumed by a massive OT discussion that already spanned multiple pages in the worst houserules thread. My definition of fight is apparently different from yours, wherein a fight can simply be a spirited struggle without the need for anger.
Of course, in that time the thread has gotten substantially more on track and has produced quite a few jewels, so my fears appear to have been unfounded. Incidentally, I was annoyed rather than feeling clever when I posted the comic, and was not actually trying to be funny. In hindsight I probably should have realized most of the net has already seen it.
Crazy
4e:
I allow Half-elves to take either Elven Accuracy, Fae Step, Darkness or Faerie Fire/Dancing Lights as an alternative to Dilettante
*Yoink*
Wow, we've been playing that wrong for AGES...
Crazy
Been there, done that.
When we first started playing 3e right after it came out, we made the assumption that pages from a spellbook could be used as a scroll in a pinch. If that wasn't an actual rule in 2e it was a house rule that was common to my games, my wife's previous games, and our friends' previous games.
When we finally realized two or so years later that it wasn't an actual rule, we decided to just keep it for the rest of that game.
Honor: This is a huge factor in any game, and life itself too. I got the idea from playing HackMaster where Honor is a huge part of the game. The higher your honor, the more you are respected, likely to get better deals on equipment, given good quests to complete. And, as a bonus, you are able to get a better attack by +1. The negative effects to having a high honor is that the bad guys are more likely to "try to put you in your place." As they see your honor is high, they're going to test that and try to beat the **** out of your character.
On the flip side, lower honor means not a lot of people are going to give you respect. You'll be laughed at, not given good deals when purchasing equipment, boring/bad quests, etc. Also, there's a -1 attack penalty as well. The only good outcome to having lower honor is that enemies or people won't give you the time of day, which may mean less experience.
Having honor is a huge part in my games.
Critical Hits and Critical Misses: Depending on the percentile roll and what weapon is chosen, and if a called-shot is made, your character can hit anywhere from top of the head to little toe. It does the regular amount of damage for the weapon plus any extra damage or after-effects depending on where the strike hit. Top of the head is going to be worse off than little toe of course.
Critical misses are just as fun for me as they are for the PCs...sort of. Thrown weapon (in 8 different directions ranging in distance), strike self, strike other, etc. and ranging in damage. This is entirely plausible too. Even the best fighter in the world can screw up.
Experience: Divided up between roleplaying and hacking. Afterall, this is a role playing game, not just a hack and slash game.
Schools: I'll be starting schools in my campaign as well, for any class really. Schools help out by teaching the character how to hack and slash better than what they're capable of. Sure, a PC can learn how to hack a monster to bits, but they will be more efficient at it if they go to a school and learn exactly where to hit, how to hit, and so on.
Armor hit points: This is something that I've learned is incredibly invaluable in actual game play. Keeping up with armor maintenance. If you go without maintaining your armor for a long period of time it will eventually become useless. Armor is not invincible.
Quirks and Flaws: Not required to be taken, but it certainly does make the game a lot more interesting. Anything from personality quirks, mental quirks, to physical flaws ranging in minor and mental. Anosmia, psychotic aversion to class/monster/race, to double arm amputee, truthful, multiple personality disorder. A lot of them. PCs and NPCs alike have them so I don't discriminate and say that he NPCs are "perfect." Who knows, the NPCs might have a psychotic aversion to kittens, be blind in both eyes, and have a strange funk about them.
Other tidbits and cannibalizations from other games/DMs:
Show
-Upon rolling HP @ lvl 'x', player makes roll, DM makes secret roll. Choose. Of course, you might expect mroe than avg HP in the opposition too...
-Raw materials for Item Creation can be found in certain areas, monsters, plants, etc w/ the appropriate Skill. Better success means more materials. After suspicions, KnowAracana confirms if item is valid per Item Creation.
Dungeoneering reverals mind flayer, very cerebral, weaknesses/benefits, etc.
Arcana reveals grey matter is a big chunk of a Detc. Thoughts potion.
-Clerics can use Heavy Shields & an occupied weapon hand and still cast. Not sure about this one, especiallyl when I saw Somatic Weaponry feat.
-More of a fact; coin purse/belt hold 50 coins only. Rest of your $ is in your backpack or other inventory piece. Track it or my thieves will (laughing to the bank). Rare you'll get robbed, but the details are important to prevent later complaints.
-Penalties on Diplomacy and other social skills when you're fresh from battle, out of the sewer, etc. No one wants to talk to the guy @ party 'x' who's covered in blood. This is situational largely w/ mitigating circumstances.
-All PC rolls in the open, all DM's aren't; makes faux ones designed to fool hard to distinguish and maintains integrity of certain checks that must be clandestine.
-Your mini is in where you are, no exceptions (in combat). You're responsible for 1 piece of paper, some dice, and a chunk of metal. The DM is responsible for way the Hell more of all 3 and then some. Pull some weight or leave.
-If 1 player "has the floor", that's code for, "
!" to the rest. We learned this in Kindergarten, and yet, grown (wo)men still have difficulty w/ it.
-If you're gaming @ the table, you're not playing a DS or PSP, texting, talking on your cell, checking e-mail, etc. You forfeit every turn/XP when you do.
-More PC classes are more customizable. Guard Ftrs, for example, may elect for Spot & Listen at a cost of something else negotiated w/ the DM.
-Clerics are all proficient in deity's favored weapon baring crazy like spiked chain.
-$ alone doesn't = Raise/Ress etc. No god(s) is an ATM for your convenience.
-Maintenence; ex) if you don't have a whetstone @ start and you're fighting w/ 'x' a lot, expect a penalty from "neglect" of gear. Same thing for "after a while, in town..." you better pay the smithy a visit here and there. You don't have to declare every damn thing, but an efforct must be made. Btw, familiars need food & water too (unless you want to risk them hunting alone).
-Upon rolling HP @ lvl 'x', player makes roll, DM makes secret roll. Choose. Of course, you might expect mroe than avg HP in the opposition too...
-Raw materials for Item Creation can be found in certain areas, monsters, plants, etc w/ the appropriate Skill. Better success means more materials. After suspicions, KnowAracana confirms if item is valid per Item Creation.
Dungeoneering reverals mind flayer, very cerebral, weaknesses/benefits, etc.
Arcana reveals grey matter is a big chunk of a Detc. Thoughts potion.
-Clerics can use Heavy Shields & an occupied weapon hand and still cast. Not sure about this one, especiallyl when I saw Somatic Weaponry feat.
-More of a fact; coin purse/belt hold 50 coins only. Rest of your $ is in your backpack or other inventory piece. Track it or my thieves will (laughing to the bank). Rare you'll get robbed, but the details are important to prevent later complaints.
-Penalties on Diplomacy and other social skills when you're fresh from battle, out of the sewer, etc. No one wants to talk to the guy @ party 'x' who's covered in blood. This is situational largely w/ mitigating circumstances.
-All PC rolls in the open, all DM's aren't; makes faux ones designed to fool hard to distinguish and maintains integrity of certain checks that must be clandestine.
-Your mini is in where you are, no exceptions (in combat). You're responsible for 1 piece of paper, some dice, and a chunk of metal. The DM is responsible for way the Hell more of all 3 and then some. Pull some weight or leave.
-If 1 player "has the floor", that's code for, "
!" to the rest. We learned this in Kindergarten, and yet, grown (wo)men still have difficulty w/ it.-If you're gaming @ the table, you're not playing a DS or PSP, texting, talking on your cell, checking e-mail, etc. You forfeit every turn/XP when you do.
-More PC classes are more customizable. Guard Ftrs, for example, may elect for Spot & Listen at a cost of something else negotiated w/ the DM.
-Clerics are all proficient in deity's favored weapon baring crazy
like spiked chain.-$ alone doesn't = Raise/Ress etc. No god(s) is an ATM for your convenience.
-Maintenence; ex) if you don't have a whetstone @ start and you're fighting w/ 'x' a lot, expect a penalty from "neglect" of gear. Same thing for "after a while, in town..." you better pay the smithy a visit here and there. You don't have to declare every damn thing, but an efforct must be made. Btw, familiars need food & water too (unless you want to risk them hunting alone).
More of a fact; coin purse/belt hold 50 coins only. Rest of your $ is in your backpack or other inventory piece. Track it or my thieves will (laughing to the bank). Rare you'll get robbed, but the details are important to prevent later complaints.
How is this a fact?
How is this a "fact"?
Because you can't fit 500 $100 into your wallet. Size restraints.
Another good one about the weapons. Gotta keep them in good condition. Can't fight very well with a rusted, pitted, dull sword.
Because you can't fit 500 $100 into your wallet. Size restraints.
Spurious comparison. Coins are not bills and a belt pouch isn't a wallet.
Spurious comparison. Coins are not bills and a belt pouch isn't a wallet.
but volume is volume.
50 is probably a little small; but it is still a full pound.
That being said, I'd say that a single gp is pretty small. according to phb, 50 gp weighs one pound; given that gold is 19.3gm/cc, that would mean that one pound of gold is ~ 1.434 in^3 -- or 0.02868 in^3 per gp (very tiny).
of course, I doubt that they were using 24 carat gold.
it was probably more like 9-14 carats. which is still very small (2.16 in^3 - 1.858 in^3 per pound -or- .037 - .043 in^3 per gp).
EDIT: I did some research on how big a D&D gp would be:
24 carat gold -- about the size of a dime
9 carat gold -- about the size of a nickel
so, only one role of coins per belt pouch? pretty small pouch.
You can't fail a skill check by rolling a 1.
*points to title of thread* ;)
In order to qualify for a feat, PrC, etc., you must inherently meet the prereqs. This means: no items, no spells, no temperary effects, etc.
I don't know if you guys think this is good or bad; but I think it makes sense on a fundamental level. And making sense = good.
My houserule on that was/is: A fumble can occur on the first attack roll of a full attack action. That way you avoid the flaw of a higher level combatant being more penalized by the rule than a lower level one, and at the same time allow for critical fumbles to occur. As for what that penalty was, in my campaign it was that you lost the remainder of your actions for that round.
==
In 4th edition, I have a few house rules I've implemented. The first is that ongoing effects occur on the same initiative you have acquired them. Thus, you can not delay in order to wait on taking damage that might drop you unconscious. The second is that prime shot is changed so that it applies to whoever your nearest possible target is rather than only working if you are the nearest person to a given target. Finally, daily abilities are only recoverable after two milestones have been earned. That way I don't have to artificially try to force four combats between long rests, while still creating that relatively proportional resource balance through expenditure. As a caveat, I do allow milestones earned since the last long rest to be counted toward this requirement.
Something I've done all along:
In order to qualify for a feat, PrC, etc., you must inherently meet the prereqs. This means: no items, no spells, no temperary effects, etc.
I don't know if you guys think this is good or bad; but I think it makes sense on a fundamental level. And making sense = good.
I wasn't even aware that was a houserule, actually.
In regards to critical fumbles (and 3.5 rules):
My houserule on that was/is: A fumble can occur on the first attack roll of a full attack action. That way you avoid the flaw of a higher level combatant being more penalized by the rule than a lower level one, and at the same time allow for critical fumbles to occur. As for what that penalty was, in my campaign it was that you lost the remainder of your actions for that round.
This is another good solution. I can anticipate the response, though: melee characters are still attacking every round while casters may only use an attack roll once in a blue moon. Combined with other solutions, though, this is absolutely fantastic. Love it.
I also like your houserule for 4e in assigning ongoing damage at the initiative order it was received.
I'm a bit surprised at all of the houserules popping up that require upkeep of weapons and armor. Of course, if it floats you and your party's boat... but for me, it just sounds rather tedious, when I can make the assumption that they take care of such things at camp and in town by abstracting it away. Do you guys find that the realism adds much enjoyment? I'm curious how it impacts your game.
4e:
I allow Half-elves to take either Elven Accuracy, Fae Step, Darkness or Faerie Fire/Dancing Lights as an alternative to Dilettante
This is an awesome idea. I'm totally using it...
but volume is volume.
50 is probably a little small; but it is still a full pound.
When I was a teen I went to a few SCA events in garb and have carried several hundred Canadian $1 coins in a beltpouch while doing so. A singe $1 coin weighs 7 grams, so it is approximately 64 to the pound.
To label it as "fact" that a beltpouch can only hold 50 coins is absurd. It can easily hold many pounds and many hundred coins. The only limitation is on;es personal comfort level of walking or running around with a several pound weight banging around your groin.
Preparing spells each day is essentially pre-casting most of each spell and mentlaly "leaving your finger on the page" so you can finish the last few words and gestures when desired to activate it.
So it follows that one should be able to cast the entire spell at one go by reading it directly from the spellbook.
Doing so requires 10 minutes per level of the spell to cast* or the listed casting time, whichever is longer.
* 1st level spells take 1 minute, 2nd level spells take 20 minutes, etc…
Another spell-related house-rule [3e]:
Cantrips/0-level spells do not require memorization and can be cast at-will.
When I was a teen I went to a few SCA events in garb and have carried several hundred Canadian $1 coins in a beltpouch while doing so. A singe $1 coin weighs 7 grams, so it is approximately 64 to the pound.
To label it as "fact" that a beltpouch can only hold 50 coins is absurd. It can easily hold many pounds and many hundred coins. The only limitation is on;es personal comfort level of walking or running around with a several pound weight banging around your groin.
Given that we ourselves have so many different sizes of coins they could vary greatly for DnD worlds too. I know some worlds make a point of saying exactly what their currency looks like (size and shape, or at least they did in previous editions).
In worlds where it isn't specified, I always kinda pictured platinum/gold/silver coins to be the size of poker chips.
In 4th edition, I have a few house rules I've implemented. The first is that ongoing effects occur on the same initiative you have acquired them. Thus, you can not delay in order to wait on taking damage that might drop you unconscious.
I'm a little confused as to how your players were accomplishing this. From RAW:
Start of Your Turn: At the moment you delay, carry out the start of your turn normally.
So your start of turn takes effect on the initiative count that you delayed, which includes on going damage. How were people getting around this?
How is this a fact?
3.5 PHB (gear).
To label it as "fact" that a beltpouch can only hold 50 coins is absurd.
No more absurd than say, oh, casting condescension on your fellow posters over petty disagreements concerning house rules of all things, maybe? This isn't even a houserule, hence "fact".
Try not to jump the gun and you won't shoot yourself in the foot.
COINS
The most common coin is the gold piece (gp). A gold piece is worth 10 silver pieces. Each silver piece is worth 10 copper pieces (cp). In addition to copper, silver, and gold coins, there are also platinum pieces (pp), which are each worth 10 gp.
The standard coin weighs about a third of an ounce (fifty to the pound).
Now, that certainly doesn't say a coin purse can only hold 1 pound of coins (and therefore only hold 50 coins). It just states that 50 coins weigh one pound.
Pouch, belt (empty) 1 gp 1/2 lb.1
in the SRD apart from the math/currency rates you posted thus far (thanks). Maybe it really is a houserule then cuz' I could've sworn it was 50 max. At least that's what Luke, my last DM imparted to me back in '04. Just became gospel. Is there a variation in the PHB from the SRD here?
...we made the assumption that pages from a spellbook could be used as a scroll in a pinch. If that wasn't an actual rule in 2e it was a house rule that was common to my games, my wife's previous games, and our friends' previous games.
From '90-'95 (2nd ed) we adopted that too from another DM, Jay. Basically, it was namely expressed as you can rip page 'x' out of spell book 'y' and read it as a scroll...but it turns to ash after (permanently gone). Think it might've saved my bro's magi in a pinch once or twice.
When we finally realized two or so years later that it wasn't an actual rule, we decided to just keep it for the rest of that game.
How'd that work out in 3.x? At least in terms of Item Creation, $, time, etc., what's your theory/final word on it? Considering it again myself anyway.
@ Zherog: Hmm. No PHB w/ me presently and I'm only seeing (below)
Kinda makes this post seem a little ironic, doesn't it?
;)
@ Zherog: Hmm. No PHB w/ me presently and I'm only seeing (below)
in the SRD apart from the math/currency rates you posted thus far (thanks). Maybe it really is a houserule then cuz' I could've sworn it was 50 max. At least that's what Luke, my last DM imparted to me back in '04. Just became gospel. Is there a variation in the PHB from the SRD here?
I don't know of any variation. There may, somewhere, be rules that limit how much weight various containers can hold. But if there is, I can't recall where. Arms & Equipment Guide would be my best guess...
From '90-'95 (2nd ed) we adopted that too from another DM, Jay. Basically, it was namely expressed as you can rip page 'x' out of spell book 'y' and read it as a scroll...but it turns to ash after (permanently gone). Think it might've saved my bro's magi in a pinch once or twice.
How'd that work out in 3.x? At least in terms of Item Creation, $, time, etc., what's your theory/final word on it? Considering it again myself anyway.
Yeah, we used the "turns to ash and crumbles" bit too.
I don't recall it being used very often in our 3.0/3.5 games, to be honest. In just about every case, the wizard copied the spells he/she wanted into his/her own spellbook, passed it around to other wizards in the group (at one time we had three), then the group sold the book and split the cash.
I only recall one page being ripped out and used that way. It didn't particularly bother me, from a cost perspective, because they lost out on the ability to copy it [and sell it.
I don't know of any variation. There may, somewhere, be rules that limit how much weight various containers can hold. But if there is, I can't recall where. Arms & Equipment Guide would be my best guess...
I recall seeing one somewhere but I would be stunned to my core if it listed the carrying capacity of a beltpouch as being 1 lb/50 coins. Those little snap-shut coin purses that little old ladies carry hold more than that.
> The first is that ongoing effects occur on the same initiative you have
> acquired them. Thus, you can not delay in order to wait on taking
> damage that might drop you unconscious.
As was pointed out above, this isn't a house rule, it's how things normally work.
> The second is that prime shot is changed so that it applies to whoever
> your nearest possible target is rather than only working if you are the
> nearest person to a given target.
This is a valid change, but it looks as though you may have misread the normal Prime Shot rule: It applies when no ally is nearer, not when you're nearer than any ally, so if you and an ally are the same distance away, Prime Shot still applies to that attack.
Kinda makes this post seem a little ironic, doesn't it?
;)
Figured that was coming
. It (fact/houserule) might be, not sure yet.Show
No point to me in trying to backpedal to try and save face or some **** over a game possibility. I'm not personally invested here. But yeah, I see where you're coming from here, though I can't agree in light of the social rapport given the back n' forth w/ other posters, arguably a larger problem IMO. If we're talking politics, religion, social ************, all the CoC tabboo crap there, I'll get plenty hot. However, I don't believe in getting bent on a recreational activity/difference of opinion on small(er) potatos.
Game wise, to be fair, if it matters, the jury is still out though till I can get a PHB, A&EG as Zherog mentioned, or get some closure from Luke (the original DM in question). But yeah, I have my doubts now, but it's cool. It wouldn't be the 1st or last time I was wrong about a game w/ my friends/peers or anonymous ppl here IDK at all. I worry about the prior more.
ex) For the longest time (transitioning between 3.0 to 3.5ed) we thought Darkness was totally opaque (50%). Drow made them cringe. I was worried about what my players (friends) thought and they were cool when we discovered the error (a damn big one IMO). Here, not so much unless I screw up some poor guy/girl's game, then [insert formal apology here].
No point to me in trying to backpedal to try and save face or some **** over a game possibility. I'm not personally invested here. But yeah, I see where you're coming from here, though I can't agree in light of the social rapport given the back n' forth w/ other posters, arguably a larger problem IMO. If we're talking politics, religion, social ************, all the CoC tabboo crap there, I'll get plenty hot. However, I don't believe in getting bent on a recreational activity/difference of opinion on small(er) potatos.
Game wise, to be fair, if it matters, the jury is still out though till I can get a PHB, A&EG as Zherog mentioned, or get some closure from Luke (the original DM in question). But yeah, I have my doubts now, but it's cool. It wouldn't be the 1st or last time I was wrong about a game w/ my friends/peers or anonymous ppl here IDK at all. I worry about the prior more.
ex) For the longest time (transitioning between 3.0 to 3.5ed) we thought Darkness was totally opaque (50%). Drow made them cringe. I was worried about what my players (friends) thought and they were cool when we discovered the error (a damn big one IMO
). Here, not so much unless I screw up some poor guy/girl's game, then [insert formal apology here].Critical Hit:
if you are in crit range roll another attack to confirm the crit (if you miss that its just a normal hit)
open ended rolls (20 just means roll again and add no auto hit although most of the time a 20 will hit anyway)
after that you roll a d100 to look what your crit does (Iwrote a little java prog to have easy access to all the different crit tables (for different weapons enemy size etc) about 100 atm with many different effects from x2 mod to insta death
fumbles:
if you roll a one substract the next roll from your attack (if you would still hit the enemy you dont fumble) otherwise we have many fumble tables (also in the program with some nasty things that could happen
It may sound pretty complicated but after a few times you get into it ;)
the monsters have those crits and fumbles too of course :D
all in all I like open ended rolls very much be it fighting or skill checks
nothing more fun then to roll a 59 on a swim check and swim upward the waterfall ;)
Figured that was coming
Just joshing you, mate. Thus the ;).
Cheers.
As a player, my "houserule" in a critical fumble/fail game would be to lie and say I got a 2 or a 3 instead of a 1.
and you would expect for your DM to catch-on eventually -- at which point, you could expect to have to roll everything where he could see the result for himself.
As a player, my "houserule" in a critical fumble/fail game would be to lie and say I got a 2 or a 3 instead of a 1.
I had a player try to cheat like that. I then instituted a house rule saying all dicerolls must be visible to EVERYONE. Immediately after the ruling, I told her that the penalty for cheating was she had to roll the dice with which she cheated, and she had to take that many negative levels.
She rolled a natural 20 and died. I love when dice have a sense of irony.
That being said I HAVE found a game where fumbles/mishaps DON'T penalize the highly skilled combatants more often. In Talislanta you only have a fumble or mishap if your roll modifies to zero or below. What that means is to get there you are either casting a spell at too powerful a power level or attacking someone who is considerable more skilled in combat than you are (To find your bonus to hit in combat you compare your adjusted combat rating to the opponent's adjusted combat rating....if theirs is higher you take a penalty to your action roll). You can also tally up penalties by trying to do too many actions in a round. However, this is D&D or AD&D (depending) and that is not how the rules work in these games. It is almost impossible to have a negative to your attack rolls, especially at higher levels....and fumbles in D&D/AD&D are placed as a natural one on the die roll.
The rule was: rolling a natural 1 provokes an attack of opportunity.
It works incredibly well. The opponent's attack roll mirrors critical confirmation rolls. If you're more skilled than your opponent, you'll probably suffer few ill effects from the critical fail; if they do hit you, it's more a measure of their skill at exploiting openings than any clumsiness on your part. Moreover, the higher AC of frontline warriors makes them much less likely to suffer from a critical miss than their squishier allies.
My players all love the rule: it feels so natural, it's usually less dangerous to PCs than to monsters, and once we had a really cool scene where a PC with only a few hp left rolled a 1, prompting a frightening AoO from his target. The AoO, however, was also a 1, and so the PC got an AoO of his own, which killed the monster.
(Also, I play with the 1 = -10, 20 = 30 rule, so it's possible to roll a natural 1, provoke an AoO, and still hit your target.)
Honor: This is a huge factor in any game, and life itself too. I got the idea from playing HackMaster where Honor is a huge part of the game. The higher your honor, the more you are respected, likely to get better deals on equipment, given good quests to complete. And, as a bonus, you are able to get a better attack by +1. The negative effects to having a high honor is that the bad guys are more likely to "try to put you in your place." As they see your honor is high, they're going to test that and try to beat the **** out of your character.
On the flip side, lower honor means not a lot of people are going to give you respect. You'll be laughed at, not given good deals when purchasing equipment, boring/bad quests, etc. Also, there's a -1 attack penalty as well. The only good outcome to having lower honor is that enemies or people won't give you the time of day, which may mean less experience.
Having honor is a huge part in my games.
Your players enjoy this?!
Your players enjoy this?!
NO KIDDING. That rule is like grabbing a huge nerfbat and going swinging straight at your Evil players. It also completely removes all acting motivation on behalf of the DM regarding individual NPCs and makes them all "average" and "vanilla".
The discounts I can understand to a degree, but ATTACK BONUSES? "Your Evil, God hates you, you're physically weaker. " Makes no sense.
Hmm, didn't see that coming. Okay, then, nice/respect.
You should always expect it with me.
Some people have this notion that I'm a frothing ball of rage and bile, shaking my fists at the screen and foaming at the mouth while I hammer responses on my keyboard, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.
Instead picture me in a Hawaiian shirt, feet up on the desk, smiling and typing with one had cos the other's got a cold beer in it.
I've been online a long time, and been trolled, baited, and insulted by the best (and worst) the net has to offer. It takes a helluva a lot more than a simple disagreement over a game rule to even raise an eyebrow, let alone get me upset.
It's all good, mate, it's all good…
:D
PS - And someone better quote the "typing with one had" bit out of context and respond with "Eww!" or these aren't the forums I once loved. ;)
NPCs companions (or DMPCs) can never land killing blows. If their attack would kill an enemy said enemy is instead reduced to 1hp so that it can then be killed by a PC.
Your players enjoy this?!
You seem to forget that even evil characters have honor. Okay, put it this way, an evil character may be evil, but he has enough honor and respect to not fight an unarmed player.
Honor is completely different from any alignment. And yes, they do enjoy it, because it's pretty factual in the old stories and even today.
What knight in shining armor didn't have honor? What person today doesn't have some amount of honor? I mean really.
Even put it in terms of Star Trek. Klingons: Basically good, lots of honor. Romulans: Basically bad, lots of honor. Huge difference between the two in terms of alignment? Oh hell yeah. But they both still have lots of honor.
NO KIDDING. That rule is like grabbing a huge nerfbat and going swinging straight at your Evil players. It also completely removes all acting motivation on behalf of the DM regarding individual NPCs and makes them all "average" and "vanilla".
The discounts I can understand to a degree, but ATTACK BONUSES? "Your Evil, God hates you, you're physically weaker. " Makes no sense.
Hardly removes any acting motivation of my NPCs, it's all in how you want to play them really. An NPC is just a PC with a smaller role. Give them a personality, make them honorable or dishonorable, whatever you want.
The PC's deity isn't going to make them weaker or anything, it's just how it plays out. If you know personally you've lost some honor, you're not going to feel all that great about yourself and chances are you just might screw up some more in a fight if you're trying to regain that honor. See, people, over all, have this kind of sense when a person's feeling like a douche bag for something, and, most of the time, especially in a world like this where the strong survive, they'll take advantage of that opportunity. It's like having an off-day at work/school/somewhere.
Never said you had to factor honor into your games, but it certainly does make mine interesting. I enjoy it, the players enjoy it, and it is somewhat factual. Try it out of you want, but don't rag on it until you do. :P
You seem to forget that even evil characters have honor. Okay, put it this way, an evil character may be evil, but he has enough honor and respect to not fight an unarmed player.
Honor is completely different from any alignment. And yes, they do enjoy it, because it's pretty factual in the old stories and even today.
What knight in shining armor didn't have honor? What person today doesn't have some amount of honor? I mean really.
Even put it in terms of Star Trek. Klingons: Basically good, lots of honor. Romulans: Basically bad, lots of honor. Huge difference between the two in terms of alignment? Oh hell yeah. But they both still have lots of honor.
To be a bit more in detail (nerd alert, nerd alert), that is slightly oversimplified. Prior to the the Khitomer Accords it could be argued that for a long time the Klingons were "bad" or to put it in AD&D alignments, Lawful Evil. Over time they moved more and more to a Lawful Neutral bent but you can hardly call most Klingons "good", at least in the alignment sense. What you said about the Romulans works for me though.....Lawful Evil for sure....dealing with them is like dealing with the devil. If you think you got a good deal check twice, and after that check twice more...
+1
However, that being said, I have been bandying about the idea of granting players a "stunt bonus" to skill checks or attack rolls if they describe their actions in a cool, cinematic way or come up with a compelling in-character speech.
The purpose here is to encourage and reward roleplay and character immersion.
The problem though, is that this rule might favor more experienced and theatrical players and inadvertently punish newer, or shyer players rather than inspire roleplaying. Also, there is some room for abuse here.
Oh yes I can definitely see the possibility for abuse or at least for some downright amusing combats scenarios where everyone is swooping in on a chandelier then doing a backflip before attacking, sliding down stairs on a shield shooting arrows (I acknowledge this as LoTR property...lol), and in general looking like Cirque du Soleil mixed with medieval combat tactics...
The rule was: rolling a natural 1 provokes an attack of opportunity.
That's another one we adopted from Luke back in '04 w/ possible variations depending. And my friends and I kinda' dug it. Simple, to the point.
Show
-Not everyone takes their AoO w/ this, especially w/ multiple hostiles in the mix, and for good reason too. Unless you've got Combat Reflexes, giving up that 1 precious AoO/round leaves you open to a grapple, bullrush, whatever than can totally undermine what seemed like certain victory.
-Said AoO you take can, and often does, purposely draw an enemy's AoO...which then leaves them open to another PC perhaps better suited for 'x'.
-PC or NPC might presume you don't have it either and find out otherwise in terribly surprised and bloody fashion.
-Giving up your AoO for someone's '1' pretty much opens up all the ground around you. Still threatening those sqaures technically, but it doesn't really matter cuz' there's no AoO to spare if someone doesn't Withdraw, etc.
-Changes the flow of battle, helps kill the BS hack n' slash foolish mentality.
-Makes Ftrs/etc. appreciate Cleave & Mobility and the like moreso.
-Encourages more careful design in terms of AC and threat assessment.
-Not everyone takes their AoO w/ this, especially w/ multiple hostiles in the mix, and for good reason too. Unless you've got Combat Reflexes, giving up that 1 precious AoO/round leaves you open to a grapple, bullrush, whatever than can totally undermine what seemed like certain victory.
-Said AoO you take can, and often does, purposely draw an enemy's AoO...which then leaves them open to another PC perhaps better suited for 'x'.
-PC or NPC might presume you don't have it either and find out otherwise in terribly surprised and bloody fashion.
-Giving up your AoO for someone's '1' pretty much opens up all the ground around you. Still threatening those sqaures technically, but it doesn't really matter cuz' there's no AoO to spare if someone doesn't Withdraw, etc.
-Changes the flow of battle, helps kill the BS hack n' slash foolish mentality.
-Makes Ftrs/etc. appreciate Cleave & Mobility and the like moreso.
-Encourages more careful design in terms of AC and threat assessment.
1) Tomb-Touched Soul is a template, not a feat.
2) You don't have to be within one alignment step of your deity to be a cleric of him. I figured the alignment rule didn't make sense because you can have bad people who worship good deities, and the way we've figured out the magic system of clerics is that, the gods themselves aren't blessing the clerics (those are the Favored Souls), what's happening is that the clerics conviction and belief allow them to use these spells, which explains how clerics unaligned with gods can cast spells.
3) Sorceror's get eschew materials as a bonus feat at first level.
Really?
Because I think that sounds like an awesome sundae, covered in awesome sauce with awesome sprinkles.
Oh I never meant to say it wasn't an awesome sundae with extra awesomeness, just that it could be the possible outcome to people abusing the ruling....I too think it would be hilarious....
After all this discussion about fumble rules, particulalry since it is an OT sub-topic in a thread about best house rules, I though I might as well put forth my own house rules for fumbles, which I consider on-topiuc to the "best house rules" theme. Given my stated position, it will doubtless shock some of you to learn that I use fumbles" and my take on it will no doubt be soundly trashed by at least two posters, but here goes:
If you roll a 1 roll again.
If you roll another 1 then something situational happens.
Some examples that occurred in my last campaign:
• Fighting on a ship, Sahaugin raiding-party leader fumbled and threw his enchanted trident overboard
• A kobold threw a lantern, missed, and set another kobold on fire. The flaming kobold then spent the rest of the combat running around the barn they were fighting in setting it on fire as well.
• Ogre completely flattened an allied orc in a large melee
• PC shot the hat off another party member and sent it sailing into the underbrush. (The hat owner bought a combat chin-strap later)
• PC fumbled his first attack roll, so it turned out his sword was stuck and he was trying to use his still-sheathed blade as a club. (Back in town he bought a "Sheathemaster 1000 'Nev-R-Stuck' E-Z Release Combat Scabbard System with Bottle Opener and Toenail Clippers built right in!")
• Another PC fumbled his first attack with a crossbow so it turned out he had forgotten to load it. (It became a running gag in the game to check if his crossbow was loaded before combat)
I see these "fumbles" not as combat events but rather as a RP potential, adding memorable moments of amusement to the game. They are almost always played for laughs and many come not from me directly but from player suggestions, including from the fumbled PC's player.
For the PCs none are injurious or debilitating with no effects that span beyond the moment in which the "fumble" occurs and because they are entirely situational, playing off what is happening at that moment in the game rather than some chart or arbitrary meta-rule, they are far more organic and enhance the flow of the game rather than impeding it.
That is a great example of a good critical miss/fumble system.
You should always expect ... me in a Hawaiian shirt, feet up on the desk, smiling and typing with one hand
Eew. :surrender
Oh and best houserule is: There must be a supply of coffee such that no player goes without coffee for the whole of the session, should they so desire.
Sue me, I quit smoking, I need my coffee.
The PC's deity isn't going to make them weaker or anything, it's just how it plays out. If you know personally you've lost some honor, you're not going to feel all that great about yourself and chances are you just might screw up some more in a fight if you're trying to regain that honor. See, people, over all, have this kind of sense when a person's feeling like a douche bag for something, and, most of the time, especially in a world like this where the strong survive, they'll take advantage of that opportunity. It's like having an off-day at work/school/somewhere.
"Some people just want to watch the world burn..." This is your issue. People don't have some compass deep down that points to absolute good or evil. Often, even Evil *thinks* it is good. Honor isn't an absolute, it's an assigned social variable. If you have a chaotic evil player, they're likely to function BETTER when raping and pillaging because it's their shtick. They love it and have no sense of "lost honor" over it; they only start feeling bad when they have to be "nice" and let someone live when they don't want to.Never said you had to factor honor into your games, but it certainly does make mine interesting. I enjoy it, the players enjoy it, and it is somewhat factual. Try it out of you want, but don't rag on it until you do. :P
I've played a game like this before. The evil characters ganged up and killed the "questgiver" king the DM had put together. The DM was appalled when one of the rogues teabagged the dead king and then proceeded to skullf*** the corpse to keep the necromancer from trying to raise the dead king and turn it into a marionette. The "honor system" penalized their saves, not their attacks, but that system went out the door when a freaked-out DM asked the party why we allowed those two to do it, and we told him it's because it's what evil does and we were chaotic neutral and didn't care.
You seem to forget that even evil characters have honor. Okay, put it this way, an evil character may be evil, but he has enough honor and respect to not fight an unarmed player.
Honor is completely different from any alignment. And yes, they do enjoy it, because it's pretty factual in the old stories and even today.
What knight in shining armor didn't have honor? What person today doesn't have some amount of honor? I mean really.
Even put it in terms of Star Trek. Klingons: Basically good, lots of honor. Romulans: Basically bad, lots of honor. Huge difference between the two in terms of alignment? Oh hell yeah. But they both still have lots of honor.
Honor is a social more.
That makes it a matter of Law vs. Chaos. Chaotic characters might be honorable on accident but they don't really care. Lawful characters are the only ones who will actively seek out the "honorable method" whenever they can.
Honor is a social more.
One might argue a personal one at times. Honor isn't always contingent on what society may or may not say, much like one's conviction, etc.
That makes it a matter of Law vs. Chaos.
I don't think it's as simple as that IMO, breaking it down into dynamic opposites and explaining a very complex institution in the simplest of terms. It can be, surely, in many regards, but I wouldn't hip shoot it from there.
Chaotic characters might be honorable on accident but they don't really care. Lawful characters are the only ones who will actively seek out the "honorable method" whenever they can
Not to step on your toes, but are you sure about that?
I'm fairly confident that even the most Chaotic Barbarian, Frenzied Berserker, monstrous humanoids and such, have codes of ethics and honor themselves.
In the classical sense, barbarian 'x' will often find honor (their own brand or otherwise) in trophy taking, protecting his land/chieftan/family, a successful war path, upholding the tennets of his tribe, etc.
To dust off an old chestnut, you might remember "the noble savage" term coined from our old high school English lessons, right? The allegedly "honoroable" European explorers/colonists discovering that a good many of the indigneous ppl they thought were simpleton barbarians were often more honorable than themselves. ex) Upholding truces and mutual defense accords while we (our ancestors) were very quick to break them despite the presumed moniker of Lawful. Just a theory though.
Even an orc, the plain vanilla CE mook we know and love, will often find honor in dying in battle, such is the mentality fostered in that demographic often.
For starters, bear in mind that this is a 2nd edition campaign. All wizards get bonus spells exactly like clerics get, but it is based off of their intelligence.
The second House Rule applies to all spell casters. I allow spell casters to memorize twice as many spells as they can cast, up to a total of 5 extra spells. So, a mage who can cast 6 first level spell, 4 second level spells, and 2 third level spells can memorize 11 first, 8 second, and 4 third level spells. This gives spell casters a lot more versatility, and at low levels a lot more survivability. I always hated the old way of having 1 first level spell for your 1st level wizard. You had to carefully choose what spell to memorize, and often you were wrong! Having a first level mage who can memorize 6 spells and cast 3 is a very good thing. And in the 9 years I have been using both of these houserules I have not found anything unbalancing about them.
A third House Rule, that I absolutely love, is that my cats are not guilty of stealing dice, even if they steal the dice! If my players cannot keep their dice out of the paws of my cats then they (the players) are at fault. They are free to get their dice back. If they can. :D Every once in a while we will be playing in my living room and on the coffee table there will be dice and a single paw will appear out from under the coffee table and grab a die and try to pull it to the floor. It is vastly amusing.
Instead, they are explosive. Whenever the damage die hits the highest number, roll again and add it on to the result. Personally, I like this better because there's a much greater chance of actually providing a good reason for me to have spent the equivalent of a +5 bonus on my axe.
I've never liked the original vorpal rule because, well...why does it have to be a special property that costs +5? Can't a sufficiently sharp greataxe with enough force behind it do the same thing? I vaguely recall my friend telling me about the 'Executioner' profession from the Heroes of Horror book (I believe...might've been another book), which gets a bonus to attack rolls using a quote/unquote 'Executioner's Axe'. Also, on a crit with a Greataxe, the attack is already going to be 3d12+3x Strength. At a high enough level, this is going to instantly behead a basic enemy. (Note: Depending on the DM and the enemy) At some point, original vorpal is just a flavorful addition on a crit, especially in the hands of a seasoned fighter or barbarian.
All sentient creatures do not have a default alignment.
In any campaign I run, this is the way the world works. Because an entire species that can think would never agree on anything to that degree unless they are some sort of hive mind.
For example, elves are any alignment. Unless they live underground. Then they're eeeeevil.
Fooey on that.
One might argue a personal one at times. Honor isn't always contingent on what society may or may not say, much like one's conviction, etc.
Society is what creates the importance of honor. The differences between the ancient East and the ancient West IRL should show that; even their concepts of honor vary.
I don't think it's as simple as that IMO, breaking it down into dynamic opposites and explaining a very complex institution in the simplest of terms. It can be, surely, in many regards, but I wouldn't hip shoot it from there.
That's precisely what I'm calling you out on doing. While claiming to understand that "honor" is subjective, you're applying an objective ruling to it. If I were in your campaign, and had a personal hatred for humans, and started murdering them, you'd give me negs for being dishonorable; but my character would ENJOY the behavior. They would value it above honor and consider "honor" to be absolute crap, because obviously the character is Chaotic Evil. The more he was penalized for the behavior, the more he'd be apt to do it, because to him, the "honorable" thing (according to your definition) is to kill all humans.
Not to step on your toes, but are you sure about that?
I'm fairly confident that even the most Chaotic Barbarian, Frenzied Berserker, monstrous humanoids and such, have codes of ethics and honor themselves.
Beholders are an example, and they are Lawful Evil. They only protect the concept of Law because they can use it to their advantage, and they have certain rules that keep them from killing each other; however, they will utterly slaughter any other living being they can, for either sport, food, or loot.
I once had a tiefling thief who started taking Assassin levels. He began systematically ninja-killing people in the town during rest periods (he'd call me on the phone and ask to take action during an extended rest. He was penalized some of the healing, and in exchange got to do this). He was rather successful; why would I penalize this? His entire CLASS was based on "dishonorable" killing, unless there really is an individual code of "honor", in which case you would have to give people bonuses for acting in-character, not acting on an objective scale.
In the classical sense, barbarian 'x' will often find honor (their own brand or otherwise) in trophy taking, protecting his land/chieftan/family, a successful war path, upholding the tennets of his tribe, etc.
These are all traits defined as "lawful" if it's a matter of upholding tradition and protecting others. That's a Lawful Good character you just described there. What if he hates his tribe and even being around them sickens him? What if he was the weakest and therefore ostricized? What if he had some innate magical power and was run out? Would you penalize him for being "dishonorable" by seeking the revenge that would calm his soul?
To dust off an old chestnut, you might remember "the noble savage" term coined from our old high school English lessons, right? The allegedly "honoroable" European explorers/colonists discovering that a good many of the indigneous ppl they thought were simpleton barbarians were often more honorable than themselves. ex) Upholding truces and mutual defense accords while we (our ancestors) were very quick to break them despite the presumed moniker of Lawful. Just a theory though.
I think you're really confused on the difference between Lawful and Good. I don't fault you for that; governments have been trying to link the two for centuries to keep the populace in check.
In the description above, the Native Americans were Lawful Neutral or Lawful Good. They were more likely to help than harm, and upheld their agreements. Europeans looking down on them was an Evil act, but they weren't inherently evil. They were largely just undereducated as to the nature of the "savages". The Lawful Evil people were the leaders who used their ties in government to trigger wars that overrode all of those agreements. The people who wanted the land for themselves so they could have remote locations away from Law were either true-Neutral or Neutral Evil, largely.
Even an orc, the plain vanilla CE mook we know and love, will often find honor in dying in battle, such is the mentality fostered in that demographic often.
Orcs are usually Chaotic Evil, but then again, the mentality to which you are referencing is not present in the D&D version of an orc by default. From Monster Manual I, 3.5e, p.203: "They enjoy attacking from concealment and setting ambushes, and they obey the rules of war (such as honoring a truce) only as long as it is convenient for them." Also, from p.204, "Orc Spellcasters are ambitious, and rivalries between them and warrior leaders sometimes tear a tribe apart."
Also, they worship Gruumsh, who tolerates no sign of peace; a peace accord is intended to be broken before it is ever written.
I don't see the description of Orcs you gave anywhere in there.
Here is one that me and the DM are planning on testing: Full attacks are standard actions instead of full round. We figure this will speed up combat a bit, and give fighter types a bit of a leg up on casters.
You let me know how this works out, because I'm not yet sure if this is genius or crazy... if it's genius, though, I'm totally stealing it.
Anyway, in the games I run I have 2 houserules that my players seem to enjoy.
The first is a system of Roleplaying points. Essentially, I hand out these points to players when they do something really clever or in character. They can trade these points in for pretty much anything, within reason. There are different ratios to trade in x amount of RP points for gold, xp, a skill point, or many other things. We find this works better and is a bit more flexible than simply handing out roleplaying XP, and encourages more RP from the group.
The second thing is I require all new characters to write 3 beliefs and up to 3 habits on the back of their card.
The beliefs are pretty self explanatory as essentially your characters 3 defining ideals. They can be anything from "All undead are abominations that must be destroyed" to "I believe even the most evil being is capable of redemption". They define some important points about what the character is about, both to the other characters and to myself. They also give me specific things to look for in each character to award RP points, as well as new ways to mess with their heads and morals when I want to. I tend to give RP for difficult decisions RPed well, even if they go against a characters beliefs.
Habits are a little different in that they include all the weals and woes of a specific habit a character is into. These usually have something to do with game mechanics, but not always. Habits can include "I never throw the first punch" or "I always keep a dagger on me" or "I always appraise things before I sell them." This can make things easier on the group, as when the appraiser finds an item he'll sell (gems or art etc.) I can just give him a straight price as if he had taken 10 under the assumption that he'll appraise it on their next rest or whenever his next chance is. This prevents me from having to scour my notes to remember where he picked up 'blue gem', what it actually was, and what it was worth weeks after he picked it up. If it was a magic item or something beyond a mere appraise check, he learns nothing.
Some habits have drawbacks, too... for example, the player who always has a dagger on him will be armed if their camp is raided in their sleep, but he might also have it found on him if he fails to turn it over when they have an audience with the queen.
Oh I forgot my actual favourite houserule:
All sentient creatures do not have a default alignment.
In any campaign I run, this is the way the world works. Because an entire species that can think would never agree on anything to that degree unless they are some sort of hive mind.
The problem is that assumes our human version of sentience is the only one. I find it far more absurd and unlikely that an alien species, evolved from a completely different creature would think or act even remotely like us.
I would find it for more convincing if all other species had alignment restrictions and humans are unique in our fickleness and impermanence on the topic of morality, much to the cagrin and bewilderment of the other races.
That is assuming a biological origin of life, of course, In a setting where the races were created by Gods it is most likely they'd be created in that God's moral image, or a differing one he might have chosen for some reason, and would therefore by their nature adhere to the alignment he instilled in them.
Society is what creates the importance of honor.
Or family, or religion, or military tradition, etc. etc. Honor does not fall under the aegis of any 1 single human institution/concept. It has many flavors, some of which have a bitter aftertaste, others, a very mild one.
Show
Load bearing Wall o' Text...
It cannot in a simple East/West compare & contrast capacity. It's not that simple. Because "concepts of honor vary", as they should, there isn't a true level playing field to gauge it. How do you quantify something that you can only qualify? That's RL talking, but I know, in this game, there's mechanics for damn near every little thing. Is what it is...
Calling me out? What, like to dinner ;)? Keep it professional and/or respectful. I wouldn't stick my neck out for you on other pages only to have it chopped here for nothing, savvy? You can disagree just fine as is w/out pretense or bluster and not risk loss of face. I don't judge that way.
Explain. All I was saying is, IMO, honor isn't really contingent on various aligment archetypes. How do you measure something like that? Ppl are trying to break it down into dynamic opposites (law/chaos) and imply (not state) that it is the province of one & not the other, which is false. Thematically, dynamic Law lends itself better to the institution in many aspects of the game, but it is a very narrow and unenlightened POV. You've just removed a ton of game content and good ideas by operating in that fashion.
Do not speak for me on what I would do, especially in this situation. I extend that same courtesy/respect, I'd reciprocate if I were you, it helps. You could've asked, "Hey 2kG, what would you rule on here?" And I'd be more than happy to answer promptly as best able as it's a good question.
To that end, I wouldn't give you "negs", whatever that means. I'd call it unlawful & evil in most instances at best, however, I entertain convincing arguements every Sunday @ my table like clockwork. I have to.
Perfect example; Ranger's Favored Enemy. Even a like-minded Ftr might call wiping out an orc warren "ethnic cleansing", but for many a good Rng, it's principle or honor, depending on motivation, entirely a PC plot device/RP element. So, it could be a personal matter (Rng above), societal (Knight's code), religious (Pal/Clr's & undead anyone?), and so forth, not simply 1 point of order in a b/w, "this or that" capacity.
You should read Lords of Madness. In short, beholders are incredibly xenophobic & fascist as Hell, frequently destroying other beholderkin that do not meet their idealized image (type). Furthermore, they're not the rampant death machines claimed; they broker deals & enslave constantly. It's smarter than laying waste to everything in sight. They're not that dumb.
As opposed to normal-killing them?
Entirely a PC issue. Unsanctioned contract killings may/may not be unhonorable (not my call), but they are most assuredly stupid & risky. Jeopardizes one's standing as well as group cohesion. Assassins are supposed to be professional killers, not ppl engaging in random thuggery in their downtime. Granted, hacks of all classes abound, but their tenure is short lived at best. Cream rises to the top, whey sinks.
IDK, why would you? I could give a damn in terms of honor. It's supposed to be about $ for murder I thought. More disclosure plz, this is unclear.
There are for some, not for all. Some fraternal organizations imply/demand a more codified and rigid design of honor, some are more fast and loose:
-THE Assassins of earthen mythoi, levied honor on it quite heavilly. It had serious religious implications for them in no uncertain terms. Stealing away in the night to put down a caliph might've been construed as dishonorable by his personal guard, but a great honor amongst the Assassins' inner circle.
-Ninjas, in the classical sense, were found unhonorable among the samurai class in their killings. But honor could be bestowed upon a ninja clan for a successful assassination by another member of the shogunate vs. a rival.
-Leon ("The Professional") a simpleton but expert assassin, had his own code of honor as well, the simple but warranted, "No women, no kids."
In otherwords, honor, in its many forms, is often relative. Depends on POV often and I do not endorse an objective scale largely. I've entertained it using Oriental Adventures, but in a small, simple mechanical capacity (as recommended), namely for determining Diplomacy, etc. It's not the sole province of the samurai class (game wise), but it's damn close for WotC.
Uh, right...Those aren't lawful traits so much as actions w/ a veneer of honor upon them, for good or ill. Why? Brb's, all being Chaotic, per RAW anyway, could never maintain a tribal code of ethics such as "defend your own" w/out trespassing into Lawful territory? Furthermore, a successful war party, as mentioned; scalping frontiersmen & their families for instance, isn't exactly Lawful, but honor, in the primitive sense of tribe 'x', might be gleaned from the trophy. Hence, "badge of honor" (in this sense). Most barbarians are all about TRADITION and HONOR, IRL or otherwise. It's their perception of it that varies from our own.
No, only in your gaming esteem here. They were just Stone & Bronze Age ppl bereft of 1 of 9 moral archetypes. There is no alignment IRL, hence all the static it fosters out here. It was a theory, not a maxim. Do remember "barbarian" doesn't necessarilly mean Brb in the game sense. Typically, anyone that isn't "us" (per culture 'x') is often construed as a "barbarian" per the antiquated societal stereotypes, but that goes w/out saying. Plenty of "barbarian" Indians I'm sure were more qualified as Rangers, Shamans, Scouts, and so on and so forth than actual Barbarians. Alignment is irrelevant in this sense but plays a larger role in terms of honor in others.
The PrC's, Eye of Gruumsh, Orc Warlord, King Obould Many Arrows (R.A. Salvatore) and the adventure "Sons of Gruumsh" are pretty telling in many ways in light of honor. I never argued ALL orcs being these stoic, honor-driven badasses. Plz do not infer otherwise. I entertain all possibilities and truths until disproven. This isn't one of those cases.
Your point? Degrees of honor doesn't make a race, class, nationality, whatever, completely devoid of the concept. You're creating a false maxim in an "all or nothing" mentality. Even the staunchest samurai families, stereotypically "honoroable", employed seriously dishonorable tactics; hiring of ninjas, deposing of an heir, subjugating the peasantry, etc. etc. Orcs are more apt to behave in this fashion, but that does not make them ALL bereft of any semblance of honor.
An accord, a sign of Law & order, surely, not necessarilly a matter of honor. To many, most really, breach of said contract is dishonorable from where they (we) sit, truly. We are not they though, so it becomes important to suspend our disbelief and try and understand, not necessarilly adopt that foreign mindset. From an orc's position of power & alleged superiority, it is often understood to be a simple matter of pragmatism as others are quite content to break pacts w/ orcs in turn. Honor is irrelevant I would venture there. Slaying an elf cleric w/ a spear (favored weapon), oh, that's big time honor right there.
Where we might stress honor, being products of our environments, is not necessarilly where a completely different race of a completely different alignment would.
Because you are likely predisposed to 1 specific line of thought precluding all others as wrong. We all do it. It's just there is often more than one correct answer, and by no way am I endorsing mine as "correct", merely an interpretation many subscribe to, no more, no less.
Load bearing Wall o' Text...
The differences between the ancient East and the ancient West IRL should show that; even their concepts of honor vary.
It cannot in a simple East/West compare & contrast capacity. It's not that simple. Because "concepts of honor vary", as they should, there isn't a true level playing field to gauge it. How do you quantify something that you can only qualify? That's RL talking, but I know, in this game, there's mechanics for damn near every little thing
. Is what it is...That's precisely what I'm calling you out on doing.
Calling me out? What, like to dinner ;)? Keep it professional and/or respectful. I wouldn't stick my neck out for you on other pages only to have it chopped here for nothing, savvy? You can disagree just fine as is w/out pretense or bluster and not risk loss of face. I don't judge that way.
While claiming to understand that "honor" is subjective, you're applying an objective ruling to it.
Explain. All I was saying is, IMO, honor isn't really contingent on various aligment archetypes. How do you measure something like that? Ppl are trying to break it down into dynamic opposites (law/chaos) and imply (not state) that it is the province of one & not the other, which is false. Thematically, dynamic Law lends itself better to the institution in many aspects of the game, but it is a very narrow and unenlightened POV. You've just removed a ton of game content and good ideas by operating in that fashion.If I were in your campaign, and had a personal hatred for humans, and started murdering them, you'd give me negs for being dishonorable; but my character would ENJOY the behavior. They would value it above honor and consider "honor" to be absolute crap, because obviously the character is Chaotic Evil. The more he was penalized for the behavior, the more he'd be apt to do it, because to him, the "honorable" thing (according to your definition) is to kill all humans.
Do not speak for me on what I would do, especially in this situation. I extend that same courtesy/respect, I'd reciprocate if I were you, it helps. You could've asked, "Hey 2kG, what would you rule on here?" And I'd be more than happy to answer promptly as best able as it's a good question.
To that end, I wouldn't give you "negs", whatever that means. I'd call it unlawful & evil in most instances at best, however, I entertain convincing arguements every Sunday @ my table like clockwork. I have to.
Perfect example; Ranger's Favored Enemy. Even a like-minded Ftr might call wiping out an orc warren "ethnic cleansing", but for many a good Rng, it's principle or honor, depending on motivation, entirely a PC plot device/RP element. So, it could be a personal matter (Rng above), societal (Knight's code), religious (Pal/Clr's & undead anyone?), and so forth, not simply 1 point of order in a b/w, "this or that" capacity.
Beholders are an example, and they are Lawful Evil. They only protect the concept of Law because they can use it to their advantage, and they have certain rules that keep them from killing each other; however, they will utterly slaughter any other living being they can, for either sport, food, or loot.
You should read Lords of Madness. In short, beholders are incredibly xenophobic & fascist as Hell, frequently destroying other beholderkin that do not meet their idealized image (type). Furthermore, they're not the rampant death machines claimed; they broker deals & enslave constantly. It's smarter than laying waste to everything in sight. They're not that dumb.
I once had a tiefling thief who started taking Assassin levels. He began systematically ninja-killing people...
As opposed to normal-killing them?
He was penalized some of the healing, and in exchange got to do this.
Entirely a PC issue. Unsanctioned contract killings may/may not be unhonorable (not my call), but they are most assuredly stupid & risky. Jeopardizes one's standing as well as group cohesion. Assassins are supposed to be professional killers, not ppl engaging in random thuggery in their downtime. Granted, hacks of all classes abound, but their tenure is short lived at best. Cream rises to the top, whey sinks.
He was rather successful; why would I penalize this?
IDK, why would you? I could give a damn in terms of honor. It's supposed to be about $ for murder I thought. More disclosure plz, this is unclear.
His entire CLASS was based on "dishonorable" killing, unless there really is an individual code of "honor", in which case you would have to give people bonuses for acting in-character, not acting on an objective scale.
There are for some, not for all. Some fraternal organizations imply/demand a more codified and rigid design of honor, some are more fast and loose:
-THE Assassins of earthen mythoi, levied honor on it quite heavilly. It had serious religious implications for them in no uncertain terms. Stealing away in the night to put down a caliph might've been construed as dishonorable by his personal guard, but a great honor amongst the Assassins' inner circle.
-Ninjas, in the classical sense, were found unhonorable among the samurai class in their killings. But honor could be bestowed upon a ninja clan for a successful assassination by another member of the shogunate vs. a rival.
-Leon ("The Professional") a simpleton but expert assassin, had his own code of honor as well, the simple but warranted, "No women, no kids."
In otherwords, honor, in its many forms, is often relative. Depends on POV often and I do not endorse an objective scale largely. I've entertained it using Oriental Adventures, but in a small, simple mechanical capacity (as recommended), namely for determining Diplomacy, etc. It's not the sole province of the samurai class (game wise), but it's damn close for WotC.
These are all traits defined as "lawful" if it's a matter of upholding tradition and protecting others. That's a Lawful Good character you just described there.
Uh, right...Those aren't lawful traits so much as actions w/ a veneer of honor upon them, for good or ill. Why? Brb's, all being Chaotic, per RAW anyway, could never maintain a tribal code of ethics such as "defend your own" w/out trespassing into Lawful territory?
Furthermore, a successful war party, as mentioned; scalping frontiersmen & their families for instance, isn't exactly Lawful, but honor, in the primitive sense of tribe 'x', might be gleaned from the trophy. Hence, "badge of honor" (in this sense). Most barbarians are all about TRADITION and HONOR, IRL or otherwise. It's their perception of it that varies from our own.In the description above, the Native Americans were Lawful Neutral or Lawful Good.
No, only in your gaming esteem here. They were just Stone & Bronze Age ppl bereft of 1 of 9 moral archetypes. There is no alignment IRL, hence all the static it fosters out here. It was a theory, not a maxim. Do remember "barbarian" doesn't necessarilly mean Brb in the game sense. Typically, anyone that isn't "us" (per culture 'x') is often construed as a "barbarian" per the antiquated societal stereotypes, but that goes w/out saying. Plenty of "barbarian" Indians I'm sure were more qualified as Rangers, Shamans, Scouts, and so on and so forth than actual Barbarians. Alignment is irrelevant in this sense but plays a larger role in terms of honor in others.
Orcs are usually Chaotic Evil, but then again, the mentality to which you are referencing is not present in the D&D version of an orc by default.
The PrC's, Eye of Gruumsh, Orc Warlord, King Obould Many Arrows (R.A. Salvatore) and the adventure "Sons of Gruumsh" are pretty telling in many ways in light of honor. I never argued ALL orcs being these stoic, honor-driven badasses. Plz do not infer otherwise. I entertain all possibilities and truths until disproven. This isn't one of those cases.
From Monster Manual I, 3.5e, p.203: "They enjoy attacking from concealment and setting ambushes, and they obey the rules of war (such as honoring a truce) only as long as it is convenient for them." Also, from p.204, "Orc Spellcasters are ambitious, and rivalries between them and warrior leaders sometimes tear a tribe apart."
Your point? Degrees of honor doesn't make a race, class, nationality, whatever, completely devoid of the concept. You're creating a false maxim in an "all or nothing" mentality. Even the staunchest samurai families, stereotypically "honoroable", employed seriously dishonorable tactics; hiring of ninjas, deposing of an heir, subjugating the peasantry, etc. etc. Orcs are more apt to behave in this fashion, but that does not make them ALL bereft of any semblance of honor.
Also, they worship Gruumsh, who tolerates no sign of peace; a peace accord is intended to be broken before it is ever written.
An accord, a sign of Law & order, surely, not necessarilly a matter of honor. To many, most really, breach of said contract is dishonorable from where they (we) sit, truly. We are not they though, so it becomes important to suspend our disbelief and try and understand, not necessarilly adopt that foreign mindset. From an orc's position of power & alleged superiority, it is often understood to be a simple matter of pragmatism as others are quite content to break pacts w/ orcs in turn. Honor is irrelevant I would venture there. Slaying an elf cleric w/ a spear (favored weapon), oh, that's big time honor right there.
Where we might stress honor, being products of our environments, is not necessarilly where a completely different race of a completely different alignment would.
I don't see the description of Orcs you gave anywhere in there.
Because you are likely predisposed to 1 specific line of thought precluding all others as wrong. We all do it. It's just there is often more than one correct answer, and by no way am I endorsing mine as "correct", merely an interpretation many subscribe to, no more, no less.
Every character can take an additional +2 to any single ability score. Point buy buys up from 8, 8, 10, 10, 10, 10.
On a natural 20 on a saving throw, a player removes all save ends effects and does not suffer any after effects. A bloodied character may also expend a healing surge.
Dual strike fighter power must target 2 different creatures instead of the same creature twice.
Battlerage Vigor fighters only gain their BRV temp hp when they are bloodied.
Wizards Orb of Imposition save penalty affects all targets of a power, but only for one round.
Wizards Wand of accuracy affects all targets of a power if declared before the roll.
Huge post.
Interestingly you seem to be reinforcing my point. WHile I wasn't suggesting there is an "alignment IRL", I was drawing comparisons on the same level to which they were drawn by the person who developed the "honor" system.
My point is I believe they've confused "honor" with "reputation", and there is actually an optional mechanic for reputation already.
Interestingly you seem to be reinforcing my point.
Hmm, so be it then. To be fair, I wasn't 100% what your position was and as the texts grew in size, so too did the confusion (at least mine), to which I must apologize for creating that mammoth wall of text. Sorry.
Continuing, in a nutshell, would you restate your position succinctly so that I might have a better understanding/others clarify more easilly as well too?
My point is I believe they've confused "honor" with "reputation", and there is actually an optional mechanic for reputation already.
Details plz.
Yeah, I've seen that a few times @ a few different tables. I guess the launguage in the books is often unclear, sometimes it's reading comprehension on behalf of the conflicted party, or, more often than not, their very liberal interpretation of 'x' that comes out looking more like 'y'.
But, it is a Houserule thread, so, yeah...
If the shoe fits?The only ones I'm really familiar w/, honor wise in game;
3.0's Oriental Adventures
3.5's PHB II per Knight's Code
Now, they can add/detract from the thematic punch of the game, but we all run that risk when quantifying a qualifiable concept. Like alignment, HP, BAB, etc. Rep? Think I might've seen something in Unearthed Arcana, unsure. Clarify? Unsure.
Of the (un)listed options, what, if any, do you use in your games & why?
_Jayne_Cobb_: The problem is that assumes our human version of sentience is the only one. I find it far more absurd and unlikely that an alien species, evolved from a completely different creature would think or act even remotely like us.
Yeah, our alleged infallibility. Once again, particularly in the US, we often only envision 1 "correct" answer and proceed unilatterally to much folly. Products of our environment? Problem is, after a lifetime of human indoctrination, for lack of a better word, entertaining foreign/alien notions of thinking, consciousness, and morality apart from our own, becomes extra difficult. Tabula rasa becomes a far more attractive option as previously learned info/morality/thinking muddies up the new stuff, often doing more harm than help by being a useful contrast device. But not always.
ex?) We (Arts & Fine Arts majors) started taking photography in college, it wasn't a big leap of faith per our own studies. But, when Communications majors had to take it (prereq), they were coming from a totally different mindset; they took their group critiques more personal, had a harder time getting inspiration, didn't know where the good deals were on film paper. However, their chemical math, time tables, mechanics were sound, etc.
Unlearning to remove predispositions is the short of it I guess.